Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration

Minutes (Approved)

Tuesday, March 7, 2000

Hallmark Inn, Moses Lake

Herb Teas,

 Vice Chair, Presiding

 

 

CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS at 10:00 a.m.

 

Members in attendance: Ron Angel, Bob Berger, Ann George, Bill Green, Andy Jensen, Bill Mason, Chuck Masters, Stewart Pfaff, John Shields, Herb Teas, Kurt Volker, Doug Walsh, Alan Schreiber, Tanya Wojtowych

 

Members not in attendance: Dan Locke, Ted Maxwell, Doug Muse, Bryan Sakuma, Tedd Wildman

 

Guests: Nancy Craig, Grant County PUD; Catherine Daniels, WSU-FEQL; Allan Felsot, WSU-FEQL; Phil Isaac, Wheat Grower?, Jeff Janowsky, Washington Wheat Commission, Scott McMannis, pear grower representative; Keith Pike, WSU-Prosser; Greg Raines, pear grower representative; Jane Thomas, WSU-FEQL; Tom Unruh, USDA-ARS; Joe Yenish, WSU-Pullman; Frank Young, USDA

 

Public Comment

Herb Teas offered time for public comment, a practice that the new chair, Doug Muse, suggested would be beneficial.

 

Minutes

Minutes of the January 7, 2000 meeting were presented. Kurt Volker asked that his name be added to the list as “in attendance”. Tanya Wojtowych indicated that Andy Jensen’s suggestions to explain in the minutes the Consent Agenda process and individually indicate which projects were included on the consent agenda individually, as they were listed, were incorporated.

 

 

Treasurer’s Report

Ann George turned the report over to Alan Schreiber. Alan Schreiber reported that as of March 2, Sandy Christian was officially on board, working exclusively for WSCPR and Agriculture Development Group, Inc. at WSU. In the short amount of time working in this new capacity, Sandy Christian revealed some surprising information. As a result of this, Alan Schreiber made an unexpected announcement. Contrary to previous financial reports, WSCPR is already abiding by the request of WSU administrators to deficit spend. This puts the Commission in a financial position long requested by WSU.. Alan Schreiber reported that despite increased communication with Sandy Christian and increased time and effort to understand the WSU accounting system, a fundamental misunderstanding of “carryover” led to this discrepancy. From this point forward, Sandy Christian has been instructed to provide a one-page summary for every WSCPR meeting that is comprehensible to the Commission and that will clearly outline expenditures and funds available for expenditure. A second report provided by Sandy Christian indicates that over $750,000 in funds allocated to contracts remains unspent to date. Bob Berger asked if there were any chance WSCPR would not be able to pay incoming bills. Adequate funds are available. A primary focus over the next few months will actually be to pursue those recipients who have not yet spent their allocations, especially those with funds that will be lost at the end of this fiscal year. Bob Berger suggested that “progress payments” would be a reasonable request to better track contract expenditures. He suggested that a clause be included in new contracts that indicates a grantee must invoice at least every six months (this clause already exists, but is not enforced):

 

V. C.        The Contractor will submit vouchers to WSU; Sandy Christian/WSCPR for reimbursement at least quarterly, but not more often than monthly, in triplicate to the following address:

Tanya not sure what the above is…..

 

Doug Walsh explained that payments to WSU researchers function almost like a credit card. WSU researchers receive the amount assigned to them in an account and can begin to spend immediately. 

 

Alan Schreiber made two comments in regard to the financial report: 1) WSU has continually requested that WSCPR forward allocate. 2) He offered sincere apologies for allowing this to happen.

 

Herb Teas announced that two presenters had arrived early and asked if anyone objected to their making presentations off the Agenda order.

 

Ron Angel asked whether the legislature had funded WSCPR? Alan Schreiber explained that WSU would get full funding with a side issue that doesn’t effect us. Other than that, there is no question that full funding to WSCPR will continue.

 

00AN062: The Wenatchee Valley Pear IPM Project

Greg Raines presented the project in the absence of Ted Alway

Request: $12,300; (Approved amount: $10,000)

Match: $16,300

Greg Raines explained that the project is a grower-based program to reduce pest control costs, reduce resistance development, and reduce or eliminate the use of broad-spectrum insecticides including organophosphates.  Pear growers in the Wenatchee Valley find that increased pest control costs, reduced efficacy of standard pesticides and increased regulation diminishes their results every year. The proposed project demonstrates a movement from harder pesticides to softer control. Extensive involvement of fieldmen/consultants, who will gather information by scouting and try to learn what the results mean, will facilitate and speed the adoption of successful practices.

 

Herb Teas asked for questions. Alan Schreiber confirmed that the project relied on intensive scouting and increased reliance on beneficials. He commented that the grower and academic review marks, which are excellent, “speak for themselves”. Raines explained that the overall attempt is to reduce chemical use. Fifteen different consultants are working in the program and there are no two programs and no two situations that are the same. There are no quotes “programmed”. It is between the grower and the product supplier to use the product and come up with the softest treatment possible. The grower is not expected to lock into the same situation across the board. Chuck Masters questioned whether the current and past growers would stay with the program during the coming years? All are on board for another year now. The same number of acres as were employed last year, 141, will be signed up this year. This is not a project built to expand. Kurt Volker commented that the objective is great. He asked if growers were willing to pay for this? Growers are paying $100 each. Ann George asked how many years this project has been under way and how many more years it would take until there was wide adoption of the program by growers. Raines reported that the program is horticulturally sound. Success in the British Columbia area came in the third year. Small amounts of broad-spectrum pesticides can be used and the beneficials can still hold up. The program has to be in effect at least three years to get useful answers.

 

 

Herb Teas suggested that voting on the projects be postponed to the end of the meeting, after all project proposals are heard.

 

 

The presenters thanked the Commission for altering the schedule for them and departed.

 

00AN046: Control of Russian Thistle with Herbicides and Cultural Management in Wheat and Wheat Rotations

Joe Yenish, WSU; Jeff Janosky, Washington Wheat Commission

Request: $34,500

Match: $34,500

Alan Schreiber reviewed the Minutes from January 7 meeting, to recap the discussion regarding this project when it was first presented. He observed that matching funds had been extensively discussed. Jeff Janofsky, Research Director of the Washington Wheat Commission indicated that of the $14,500 contribution made by the Wheat Commission to Joe Yenish’s program, about $5,000 was specifically dedicated to the project in question. Ranking in grower problems, Janofsky indicated that this project falls in the middle. Breeding is the Wheat Commission’s highest priority.   Each year, the Commission receives about 25-30 proposals, of which this one would rank between 10 and 15. (Eight to ten of the total are breeder projects, which would put this one at the top after breeding). He then went on to explain that the Patchen sprayer has an electric eye to detect weeds; it has a chlorophyll-seeker that determines whether an area over which it is passing is green or not. When it finds a green spot, it registers that this is a weed and turns the sprayer on. Stewart Pfaff said that spraying is necessary in place of summer fallow. That is one of reasons this research is important. Chuck Masters asked if enough research had been conducted to know whether the weed-seeker technology works. Yes. It is being used in roadside work; the technology has been around for 10 years and was finally sold to John Deere. Kurt Volker asked if any funding or agreements existed with Monsanto or Zeneca that would support or allow their products to be used. And why was there no funding from the John Deere company in support of their equipment. Kurt Volker does not think that WSCPR should pay the full $34,000. Without commercial support, it is not a proper project for WSCPR to fund. Alan Schreiber asked if the project were scalable—is it an “all or nothing” request. If partial funding were awarded, would the project proceed? Could the technology be transferred to wider acreage?  A wheat grower representative explained that to make a judgement as to whether the project could be used on a spot basis is part of the project. If in fact it does work, it seems as if this would be in line with the overall objective of reducing pesticide use. Someone objected that the Commission would refuse funding the project just because there was question as to whether it would work—functionality is part of the project. Bob Berger commented that reducing pesticide use is not an identified goal of this Commission. Kurt Volker noted that it is good if pesticide use reduction is a beneficial side effect. He also commented that he doesn’t believe the project adds to the biology of control of Russian thistle, then reiterated the point that the proposal doesn’t add a lot to what is already known. The theory is great, but the project is essentially commercial adoption of the technique. Joe Yenish explained that this aspect is only a portion, maybe one third, of the entire project. The history of the Patchen is that no work has been done with it in the northwest or anywhere else. This method has not been used post-harvest in this crop. USDA Research Agronomist, Frank Young’s project now owns the machine. The project is designed to look at two or three chemicals to find a comparison on cost savings. At what point doesn’t it pay to use Patchen on Russian thistle? At what population? Bob Berger observed that this is more appropriately a new mandate, a demonstration project. Joe Yenish noted that seeking registration for sulfentrazone constitutes about 1/3 of the project. Doug Walsh asked whether the project would sink should it not receive full funding from the Commission? Some work has already started; work would continue, but would be reduced should funding be limited.

 

Commissioners suggested that $5,000 would be a more accurately measured match for the Wheat Commission Contribution (not the $14,500 indicated). This would result in a total match of about $25,000 ($5,000 from WA Wheat, $20,000 from USEPA), for a project total of $59,500. How effective is the Patchen on a small-plot scale? Joe Yenish explained that the study would be a two-year, ecologically-based study with a much broader emphasis than just proving the machine works. Kurt Volker read the objectives from the proposal: 1) evaluate sulfentrazone and other herbicides for control of Russian thistle in winter wheat; 2) evaluate the weed seeker technology for post harvest control; 3) evaluate growth, development and seed production of Russian thistle to determine herbicide-resistance strategies. The weed seeker technology comprises at least one third of the study. Alternative crop study would be about one third. Bob Berger requested further explanation of the sprayer and why the EPA purchase is considered a match. Frank Young received the Ralston wheat match from the Wheat Commission—at least a third of that amount related to spring cropping. Someone asked whether both expenditures were over and done with? EPA, yes; however, Frank Young’s portion of the match, received from the Wheat Commission is a continuous rollover situation. Bob Berger suggested that the EPA grant is inappropriate. Doug Walsh explained the lump sum that EPA granted to the region. This project was highly rated within that regional allocation. Bob Berger asked if there would ever be an invoice for the amount indicated as matching expenditure spent on the Patchen sprayer. WSU has a specific research agreement with EPA and thus will the sum be spent. The sprayer was built with a special one-time grant.

 

Ann George called for the question. The vote was taken later in the meeting, after all proposals were heard.

 

Administrator’s Report

Alan Schreiber reviewed the contents of the Commissioner notebooks, including the Commissioner phone list, ADG, Inc., hours spent on WSCPR administration, the MOU with WSU and Amendment #1, which formally states the increase in Commission funding and the Letter of Agreement with WSU detailing Sandy Christian’s work arrangement with WSCPR and ADG, Inc. He reviewed this letter of agreement in detail and explained that several changes were necessary prior to signing. Bob Berger asked if fringe benefits would be split proportionately according to the hours worked. Alan Schreiber explained that fringe account for less than 10% of the total and would be split proportionately. Herb Teas suggested that the agreement be spelled out more precisely. The Administrator will facilitate this. Alan Schreiber pointed out that Sandy Christian intended to spend some time following up to verify matching funds as she believes the tracking of these funds must stand up to an audit. Alan Schreiber does not believe this is necessary and will check into the situation. Bill Green offered to provide Department of Ecology regulations as to how matching funds are tracked. Several details will be resolved before the document comes back to the Chair for signature. Bob Berger asked if there is any need to include a clause to guaranty protection of WSCPR records?  WSU is the fiscal agent and this responsibility should automatically fall to them.  Alan Schreiber said he would have the necessary changes made to the Letter of Agreement and request a review by WSCPR AG, Richard McCartan.

 

He then reported on a conversation with a representative of the Tree Fruit Research Commission. Because tree fruit research proposals come from several different sectors of that industry, he suggested first running all proposals received by the Commission by Jim McPherson before WSCPR reviews them. Bob Berger said he thought WSCPR should avoid having others screen projects for us. It would be appropriate to solicit a review—but not a pre-screening. Herb Teas indicated that most proposals come in as they are also presented to the commodity group. Ann George suggested that they comment, but not necessarily pre-screen proposals. Send them the review form. Don’t matching funds imply some internal review? This would more directly show support. Alan Schreiber indicated that up to half of all proposals from the tree fruit industry have not had matching tree fruit research commission funds.

 

The Administrator reported that he had received an invitation from a group in Idaho that wanted him to explain WSCPR as they wish to establish a similar organization. Although unable to suggest the mechanism, they would like to form a tri-state commission. Alan Schreiber went to speak to the group and indicated that they are adamant to do what has been done in Washington. They know about WSCPR activities and want to work cooperatively with WSCPR. The Idaho group wanted ideas on how to package the request to the legislature and other mechanisms for success. Alan Schreiber asked if Commissioners had any problem with his spending time and providing information to this group. John Shields indicated that numerous times, overlapping research is going on between the states. Something should be done to prevent this. Alan Schreiber said this had been discussed; maybe one Idaho representative could attend WSCPR meetings and one WSCPR member could attend Idaho meetings. Bob Berger suggested a look at the structure of tri-state cooperative extension. Herb Teas agreed that WSCPR should communicate and cooperate with any Idaho organization that may form. The Idaho group requested that WSCPR’s administrator draft a position paper on how this all could be achieved. Commissioners agreed that Schreiber should support efforts and activities of Idaho.

 

He reported that the 2000 WSCPR Pest Control Tour would be held the week of July 17 this year. It would have essentially the same format as every other year, would be based out of Pasco, starting with a reception on Monday evening and ending on Thursday afternoon. He intends to run the tour as similarly as possible to two years ago: Yakima Valley, Tuesday, Columbia Basin, Wednesday, dryland crops of the Palouse on Thursday. He indicated that he had been considering an overnight in Pullman, but this would probably not take place. This year the guest list would be focused on a smaller group than in the past. Invitees would be reduced so that all participants can fit on one bus. The single biggest reason for this is logistics, and wear and tear on those putting on the tour. He will plan to fill 45 seats. Commissioners are welcome and encouraged to participate in the tour, but please indicate this intention in advance.

 

Break for lunch distribution at 11:50. By 12:10, Commissioners recommenced for a working lunch.

 

Proposals (continued)

 

00PG045: Maintenance of Guthion Registrations on Pome Fruits: Fruit Residue Reduction through Spray Timing Optimization, Allan Felsot, WSU-FEQL

Request: $39,393

Match: $70,550

Allan Felsot presented his proposal, revised according to Commissioner comments at the January 7, 2000 meeting. He summarized the proposal, maintaining that the Guthion registration is still in tact. The proposed project would employ a residue study to help develop a degree day model for use on fruit and vegetables. Guthion could thus be used as an adjunct to pheromone control. Once determined, growers could use the product during the window that would result in the lowest residues at the end. Bayer has been required by EPAto conduct its residue study over again—but not in Washington. It will be forced to conduct the study at levels and intervals that are unrealistic for growers’ use in Washington. The proposed project would attempt to develop a tool as well as residue data to construct a model and perhaps a new paradigm to predict residues on commodities. This could be helpful for section 18s. Although he will continue to try to develop a cooperative program with Oregon, Felsot noted that one difference in his proposal from that presented in January was taking Oregon out of the picture. Funds requested will only be used for activities in Washington state. A commercial orchard will be used as well as cooperation with Doug Walsh’s group. Application under GLP is important. Doug Walsh has the capability to do GLP applications as well as other activities. The goal is to show residues to be applicable to regulatory packages. Mike Robinson of the Tree Fruit Research Commission said it would contribute matching monies. The budget is ½ of previous request.  Procedures are wrapped in with objectives. The project would attempt to simulate what really happens with Guthion-treated populations. This is important as EPA is using unrealistic rates of application in its material. Allan Felsot added that he would also look at single serving apples vs composites. The Tree Fruit Research Commission requested that carbaryl be included in the study. He thinks he can develop a technique that can adapt to both of these specifications. The proposed model is different from what is really out there. They want to come up with a phenological/degree-day based model, which consists largely of temperature driven applications, rather than a soil type model, that has a lot fewer parameters. This is one-year request. The proposer would continue in the second year to validate what was found. Bayer liked the project proposal and requested to see a revised edition. They have received the revised project, but a response is still pending.

 

Alan Schreiber indicated that he talked with Gregg Storey, Bayer, earlier in the day. Storey had been out of the office, but did state that Bayer gives its moral support to the project. If WSCPR and tree fruit industry funds the project, Bayer will probably contribute some money as well. Alan Schreiber noted that in regard to questions from the previous meeting, Allan Felsot had resolved the issue of Bayer support and of GLP adherence. One of his biggest remaining concerns is the interpretation of the regulatory explanation of Guthion. It appears that Allan Felsot and Bayer comprehend the issue differently. Bayer abides by 2 ppm as the tolerance for Guthion. Bayer is generating residue studies in Washington, if they are convinced that residue won’t go over 1 ppm, Bayer will lower this threshold. This interpretation appears different from Felsot’s understanding, which is based on a January EPA statement and public comment. This issue must be resolved. If reality were indeed what Bayer told Alan Schreiber in the morning, the need to fund this project would decrease. If, however, they have to lower the level, not enough data from this region has been collected and to date, no call has been made to conduct the studies in this region. This study would give the grower a choice as to when to apply product and would produce a decision tool for mitigation. It is not necessarily a project to help save Guthion, but to help growers to use less product more effectively. Allan Felsot commented, however, that you cannot trust EPA’s decision today to be it’s ruling tomorrow. Chuck Masters asked whether Bayer supports the plan. There is moral support and may be financial support as well. The current request is for $39,393 from WSCPR, $39,393 from Tree Fruit Commission and a WSU match. The Tree Fruit Commission has not yet voted, but there is a broad consensus of support. The amount of $40,000 was suggested in a recent teleconference call in regard to tree fruit research support. Kurt Volker complimented Allan Felsot for coming back with his proposal in a revised fashion that addressed every point that was brought up during the last meeting. This was an “excellent job”.  He also added that he would like to see at least written support from Bayer—not necessarily monetary—but conceptual support for the project.

 

00PN059: Survey of Pests in Vegetable Soybeans (Edamame), Doug Walsh, WSU-IAREC for Carol Miles, WSU-Chehalis

Request: $3,000

Match: $1,000

Doug Walsh presented the proposal as Carol Miles was at a conference in Portland. Edamame is a new crop to the Pacific Northwest.  Various types of pest damage have hindered the crop over the past two to three years. This study would attempt to conclusively determine what pest complex is affecting this crop and to eventually evaluate methods of control. The grower group, Cascadian Farms, will provide matching cash support of $1,000.

 

Ann George asked if anyone knew whether the organic industry has started to generate funding support? Alan Schreiber said they had not. Carol Miles received money from the Organic Research Foundation—the first formal funds from an outside source (other than Cascadian and WSCPR). Chuck Masters asked if there were any particular advantage to going into Oregon for some of this research. That is actually where Cascadian has some of its growers. How many acres of Edamame are grown? Alan Schreiber said that probably less than 100 acres are currently grown in the Pacific Northwest. Kurt Volker asked whether Edamame would be a big food of the future; is there a reason that it will be grown in Washington rather than in traditional soybean-growing areas? John Shields said he attempted to grow vegetable soybeans 15 years ago in the Blue Mountains. This required a specific process. Edamame were harvested with a pea harvester—but they bruised and the Asia standard could not be achieved. Then, the target was Asia. Maybe for US consumption, the standards will be lower. There was discussion as to whether the pod itself is consumed. Andy Jensen said the Japanese don’t eat the pod—they just pop the beans out and eat them. Bill Mason asked whether this project was more market development or pest management oriented. Alan Schreiber noted that Cascadian Farms has lost 20% of its crop to spider mites. He then reminded Commissioners of the burdock project previously funded by WSCPR; burdock was grown by a very few growers on a very limited scale in the Pacific Northwest. Now it is produced and exported to Japan. This is actually a new mandate proposal (investigative).

 

00PN060: Raspberry Disease Control Study, Doug Walsh, WSU-IAREC for Anne Schwartz, Washington Tilth Association

Request: $5640

Match: $5480

Doug Walsh presented the proposal in the absence of Anne Schwartz and Carol Miles.  The project would have two trial sites for organic raspberries: one in Oregon and one near Vancouver, Washington. Trichoderma-class organisms would be tested along with antagonists of fungal pathogens, which have the reputation of inhibiting fungal pathogens in the soil. Two different biological controls would be used. The second plot at the Vancouver station was selected because the original grower didn’t want to use Ridomil as a control. The project is supported (although not by dollars) by the Washington Red Raspberry Commission and Washington Tilth.

 

Kurt Volker asked whether the two studies are curative. Are there any plans to do a follow up or replant? Doug Walsh said this question would have to be asked of Carol Miles. Could a Nisqually study come up with any conclusions that are applicable to the main raspberry growing areas? That is why WSU site is also being used. Nisqually is basically a demonstration. Bob Berger asked for further explanation of funding. Is this request for one or three years? The request if for one year, the project is planned to last for three years. Alan Schreiber commented on the two grower reviews he had solicited. One questioned whether results would apply to other varieties. Doug Walsh responded that you don’t get a rank response on evaluating different varieties. Similar responses can be anticipated on all varieties. This is not necessarily the case in regard to responses on different species of pests—but consistency can be assumed on different raspberry species. He also noted that Carol Miles would soon be moved to the research station in Vancouver. Someone questioned whether there would be any chance to locate research plots further north in Washington. Likely, research results in wetter Vancouver, would end up with similar results. Could something be moved up to the Lynden station? Carol Miles will probably have to broaden her geographic area of responsiblity, but this can’t be guaranteed.

 

00PN061: Pesticide Notification Network, Jane Thomas, WSU-FEQL

Request: $44,052

Jane Thomas presented the request. Prior to her formal presentation, Bill Green interjected that PNN cannot really be classified with the rest of the research proposals. It is more closely tied, almost a part of the Commission itself. He suggested that PNN be tied to the base WSCPR budget. It is an essential part of WSCPR and should be supported without repeated requests.

 

 

Discussion began. Alan Schreiber reported that the legislative mandate states WSCPR would maintain a pesticide tracking system. No such system existed when WSCPR was formed, so PNN was established to address the mandate. Alan Schreiber created it while he was at WSU. The Commission doesn’t have to fund PNN, but to meet its legislative mandate, it must fund something similar. PNN was the means by which WSCPR chose to address the requirement and it seems to be proving its purpose. It has value and generates questions in the industry. There is merit to what Bill Green suggests. Alan Schreiber indicated that he likes hearing of activities and developments of PNN. The annual request in actuality is really more of an annual report. Bill Green repeated that he would like to see funding of PNN taken care of in the budget. He quoted Section 1592 to show that even the legislature split it out from the regular proposals. Ann George asked why PNN shouldn’t be included in the budget base. The opportunity to adjust the exact amount of funding would still exist within the basic budget (as a line item). Bob Berger called for the question.

 

 

Jane Thomas thanked Commissioners then proceeded to discuss progress since 1999 and distributed two summary pages. So far this year, she indicated that 50 notifications and over 1700 transmittals had been sent out. Routine notifications such as Section 18s and 24Cs were reviewed along with some non-routine notifications, such as the phytotoxic effect of azoxystrobin on apples. Jane Thomas explained that atypical notifications are more time-consuming than standard notifications, such as when WSDA requested information for a specific pesticide used on canola. The second handout explained changes made to the PNN web page, which was revamped in September 1999. It is now possible to have the actual value of a Section 18 calculated with the click of an icon at the PNN website. 24c information was similarly updated and the SLN list is now separated crop by crop. About 150 tracking hits are made each month and that number is increasing. Thomas also indicated that she started attending trade shows this fiscal year to give greater exposure to PNN. Alan Schreiber asked about the current electronic and hard copy circulation of the newsletter which contains PNN information.  Slightly under 1000. He also asked if people were still feeling “overwhelmed” by receiving too much material? Not so much any more. Is there limitation as to who can/cannot receive the information? Jane Thomas reported that the only drawback to volume is that the greater the number of recipients, the longer the time to send out the email. Stewart Pfaff suggested that even though PNN is in the budget, WSCPR should request an annual report as good as the one that was just presented. Alan Schreiber asked Jane Thomas when the best time to provide an annual report would be? She said any time convenient to Commissioners would work. The March meeting may be best if budgeting takes place in May.

 

The Minutes formally document that an annual report for PNN will be presented at the March meeting of the WSCPR.

 

00AN063: Cereal Leaf Beetle Biology, Damage and Control, Keith Pike, WSU-Prosser

Request: $16,800

Match: $25,762

Keith Pike presented the proposal. He reported that a new insect was detected in the 1999-growing season. It appears to effect timothy, grasses and oats. The cereal leaf beetle has been a problem in the eastern part of the US for a long time. In 1979 it arrived in Utah and then gradually moved up to the Pacific Northwest. Damage ranges from low to 75% loss in grain production. The insect is well controlled in the east by natural animals that have been imported. No other treatment is employed that region. The natural predator has reduced the population up to 60% and the losses down to 1%. Keith Pike suggested that the Pacific Northwest take advantage of that success, and bring in those parasites. At present, the pest has been found only in Spokane County as far as anyone knows, but it is known to be a strong flyer, especially in the adult stage. Several other counties are well suited to this pest. There is no reason to believe that this region cannot experience the same type of bio-control that has been so successful in the east. The bio-control agents that have proven effective are three larval parasites and one egg parasite. The Wheat Commission has been approached for funding, but won’t make a decision until May. The Barley Commission heard the proposal on February 22, but won’t make final budget decisions for another month. It will probably take about 5 years before imported parasites will take hold. In the interim, chemical control may have to be used. Success would be the first choice for interim control.

 

Ann George asked whether, when predators are once brought in, they would establish endemic populations that won’t have to be constantly replenished. Kurt Volker asked if the project would require the same level of funding for all three years? At least two years, maybe three would require the same level. Alan Schreiber requested that a distinction be made between natural and biological control. Do you think this pest could eventually be controlled by natural enemies—or will it need constant importation of foreign ones? Keith Pike replied that he doesn’t see how it could be controlled with natural pests. Ann George asked whether parasites would eventually follow the beetle? Or would new populations have to be introduced should the pest migrate further? Generally they go with the beetle. The parasites will at first be raised in Pullman because they need to clear quarantine. Also, Pullman is closer to Spokane, where the pests have appeared. Stewart Pfaff asked whether Washington is building a new facility for rearing insects? The new bio-control specialist will be in charge of the NW Biological and Quarantine Facility. Thus, there will be greater resources at any time now. Bob Berger noted that the leased vehicle cost is a big number. Pike replied that as he would probably be operating out of Pullman, there would be a fair amount of travel involved. (Bob Berger said at $.30/mile, travel would be in excess of 20,000 miles). Part of this amount covers lease of the vehicle. It would be preferable to start funding by April 1.

 

00AN064: Tools for pear IPM: Landscape ecology and presence-absence sampling, Tom Unruh, USDA-ARS

Request: $21,175

Match: $21,175

Tom Unruh began by providing a short history of the project. This is the second year he has requested funds for support. The project was originally funded by EPA Region 10. He said that funding would be necessary in June. In actuality, this project is really two proposals rolled into one. The first objective is to collect biological information, to map and evaluate the ground containing Pew IPM blocks and to describe management programs used. The second objective is to collect bud, leaf and shoot samples to categorize for presence and absence of psylla, spider mites and rust mites.  This information will then be used to initiate mating disruption in pears—specifically in the Yakima Valley. In one year, pesticide use on pears was been reduced, resulting in cleaner pears at less cost. This project is designed to continue that trend. There are some roadblocks. Soft programs slowly “export” less psyllid. Data taken on spring psyllid shows the value of reentry. Logistically, the person collecting data finishes that phase and can move on to conduct the second part of proposal objectives. Reducing use of organophosphates is dependent on better and cheaper monitoring. The proposal has already been submitted to the Pear Commission, but no conclusion has been heard. Tom Unruh noted that he hoped to get some sample data from Ted Alway’s project and to coordinate his results with several other projects as well. The end result will help growers and improve research practices. Bob Berger asked about the time frame.

 

Tom Unruh indicated that he had been unable to complete the sugar ester project funded by WSCPR in 1998 within the time allotted. Material to complete the project was not provided. He requested an extension to complete his work. Alan Schreiber commented that the WSCPR policy is that those requesting extensions must return to the Commission that will vote on whether the project will still be funded.

 

00AN054: Control of Winter Moth (Operophtera brumata, L.) in PNW Blueberries, Joe DeFrancesco, Oregon State University

Request:  $11,200

Match: $6,000

Alan Schreiber recapped elements of the blueberry proposal presented by Joe DeFrancesco, OSU, at the January 7 meeting. Due to its new mandate nature, a decision on this project was deferred to the March meeting, however, due to the distance the researcher would need to travel; his presence was not mandatory at two consecutive meetings. In January, this proposal was one of the few with which Commissioners voiced no contention. Kurt Volker repeated that he had some objections, expressed at the previous meeting. He indicated that the project requested too much funding for crop destruct and that the match was not enough—only $6,000—for the $11,200 requested from WSCPR. This results in an almost 2:1 match which is about a 3:1, WA:OR contribution.

 

Ann George reported that requests for this meeting total $248,000. If Commissioners approve everything presented, the budget will stand at a $453,000 deficit, meaning half of FY2001 money would already be spent. Alan Schreiber indicated that it would be highly inappropriate to forward spend $500,000. Ann George reiterated that at some point, guidelines must be established as to how much the Commission can fund. Serious thought must be given to the different types of projects—for example efficacy versus screening. Alan Schreiber indicated that he had already received three proposals for the May meeting, and more are likely to be submitted in FY2001 than were received in FY2000. Doug Walsh again suggested that just one meeting to evaluate IPM projects be held each year. When proposals are accepted all year long, great proposals may come in at the end of the May that don’t get funded whereas mediocre ones come in earlier in the year that are funded without problem. Kurt Volker asked for clarification as to whether WSCPR is desperately in the hole or has a million dollars sitting around. The answer is both. Chuck Masters asked which proposals had questionable or undefined matching funds? It was again repeated that if all proposals submitted at this March meeting were fully funded, WSCPR would be 50% spent for next fiscal year. Alan Schreiber returned to the meeting after having contacted Carol Pinch at WSU by telephone to get a clearer guidance on forward spending.  She said that forward allocation should not be taken lightly, be careful, but do it. In response to the question as to whether $300,000 of forward allocation was acceptable, she replied, “That’s just fine”. Carol Pinch cautioned reaching the $400,000 mark. PNN and administrative cost funding is not forward spending because expenditures will not take place until FY2001. This would mean that if all projects were funded, the Commission would be $350,000 forward allocated. Alan Schreiber addressed the Tour. The Commission will be responsible to pay for things, but anticipates that the money will come back. Ann George asked Allan Felsot how much money he could request from Bayer? He said about $20,000.

 

Bill Green noted that this would be the Commission’s first exercise in throwing out proposals. Eight are on the table. Voting Commissioners should rank proposals 1-8. Bill Green commented that he doesn’t think non-voting members should even comment on ranking. Commissioners ranked proposals 1-8.

 

Proposal Rank              Points Contingency

00PN045      2                     37         one to one matchw/ Bayer with a limit of $20,000 from Bayer

00AN046       8               55 Deny. $25,000 in lieu of $45,000. 50% of total. Give  them $5,000

00AN054      3                    39                     

00AN059      6                  44

00AN060      7                 52

00PN061 PNN budget item for FY2001

00AN062      5                    42                                             

00AN063      1                    14      Fund in full.

00AN064      4                  41

 

 

 

Doug Walsh said that although the raspberry project does not have a 1:1 match, WSCPR should fund it in the amount of $5,000 because there is a match, and this is the first match from the organic industry.

 

Kurt Volker agreed on the $20,000 for Allan Felsot’s program, contingent on a one-to-one Bayer match and $10,000 funding levels for both pear IPM demonstration projects, as they are complimentary.  He suggested that 00AN054 should be funded at $6,000 (to match the commodity group), 00AN059 should be funded in full for the same reason Doug Walsh stated and that the only project to be completely cut should be 00PN046.

 

 

Alan Schreiber stated support for the amended motion and indicated that he likes the ranking system; for an analytical system, it is logical. Doug Walsh noted that the small fruit commissioner (Bryan Sakuma) was absent and unable to participate in ranking. Chuck Masters asked if we know whether reducing amounts for some requests would end the projects. Alan Schreiber said that WSCPR had never lost a project due to reduced funding yet. Ann George suggested that letters of approval should contain a clause stating that funding is contingent upon a match and that if the amount granted by WSCPR is less than requested and this decreased amount renders the project impossible, recipients must notify the Commission and return funds.

 

 

 

 

New Business

Bill Green distributed a draft grant application that he created and completed according to one project reviewed. He reviewed the form. WSCPR has reached a point where it must change the way in which it does business; the Commission has come to the end of the time when it will fund everything. When a competition begins, it is much better to have uniform information so that the pieces can be compared. Real discussion on the form should take place at the May meeting, but Commissioners should review and critique the proposed form prior to that time. The purpose of the front page is to gather all key information. In the end, voting members will have to score applications prior to the meeting. The proposals would be ranked from highest to lowest and Commissioners would fund down the list so long as the money lasts. Commissioners won’t be allowed to change their scores in the interim. After scoring is complete, a funding package is the end result. One vote concludes the process.  With this method, there is a clear “why” as to funded and not funded proposals.

 

Alan Schreiber announced that although the meeting could proceed so long as Commissioners desired, it was scheduled to conclude at 3:30 pm. At present, a process, not the details should be formulated. The form could be used for the new fiscal year’s money. It also includes a clear statement of match for WSU funds and requests a projected accounting of expenditures by quarter, which will allow for tracking allocations by fiscal year. Alan Schreiber suggested that he work with Bill Green prior to the May meeting, and with other people whose organizations evaluate proposals with a ranking system. Bill Green asked that Commissioners send him comments within the next months and with ample time for amendment prior to the May meeting.

 

The Commission was notified that overhead has been taken from some funding granted to USDA researchers, which is in violation of WSCPR contracts. Alan Schreiber will look into this and ascertain that the offense is corrected.

 

Ann George indicated that she is not able to attend the May meeting, but requested that Commissioners consider and discuss adopting two funding dates for each mandate for the coming year. This discussion will become an Agenda item for the next meeting.

 

ADG, Inc. Administrative Contract. With just one meeting scheduled prior to the new fiscal year, it was necessary to discuss the ADG, Inc. Administrative Contract. According to Procedure, the Commission must decide to sole source the Contract or open it up for a bid. Alan Schreiber explained that had the Chair or past Chair been present, he would not broach the topic, however, in their absence, he reported that the AG said it probably would be best to put the Contract out for bid at least once. If there were no bids, and if the Commission was happy with the performance of the current contractor, a further open bid would not be necessary. Last year, the Contract was put out for bid. Some inquiries were made; no bids were received. Bob Berger said it would be a good move to put it out for bids, but doesn’t think there is time for this year. It has to go through the AG and OFM prior to publication. Then an advertisement must be placed for 14 days. Bill Green suggested soliciting bids in 2001. Write an extension to the contract for FY2001 and put the position out for bid to start the new biennium. This process can be discussed at the May meeting. The bid should come out in January 2001.

 

 

Doug Walsh suggested that the newly elected Chair as of January 1 be the established contact to administer the administrative contract bidding activities, but the Commission, as a whole should handle the process.

 

Alan Schreiber reviewed the procedures he had collected from previous minutes.

 

Ann George mentioned that the September meeting date is in conflict with the national IR-4 meeting and suggested that it be rescheduled for one week later in the month. The September meeting date was moved to September 20.

 

Alan reported that another pesticide registration had been granted on March 6, based on two purely Commission-funded projects in Washington. He indicated that he would start a running roster of Section 18s and Section 24cs that resulted from WSCPR-funded studies.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3:30.