Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration

Minutes (Approved)

Wednesday, November 10, 1999

Walla Walla Extension Office, Walla Walla

 

 

 

Members Present: Doug Muse, Presiding Chair; Ron Angel, Bob Berger, Ann George, Bill Green, Andy Jensen, Bill Mason, Chuck Masters, Ted Maxwell, Stewart Pfaff, Bryan Sakuma, John Shields, Herb Teas, Doug Walsh; Alan Schreiber, Shannon Johnson, Tanya Wojtowych

 

Members Absent: Kurt Volker, Tedd Wildman

 

Guests: Melinda Brophy, WSU-Prosser; John Brown, WSU-Pullman; Glen Davis, WSU-Wenatchee; Holly Ferguson, USDA-ARS, Wapato; David James, WSU-Prosser; Rick Johnson, Thurston County Noxious Weed Control Board; Brad Klepetka, University of Washington, Seattle; Glen Davis, WSU-Wenatchee, Lisa Lantz, Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board; Art Linton, WSU-Prosser; Art Losey, WSPCA; Gary Moulton, WSU-Mt. Vernon, Robert S. Pfannenstiel, USDA-ARS Wapato; Lynell Tanigoshi, WSU-Vancouver; Noreen Teas; Jane Thomas, WSU-FEQL; Joe Yenish, WSU-Pullman; Erik Zacharaeson, USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council

 

 

CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS

Doug Muse called the meeting to order at 10:05 am. Commissioners, including three whom were newly appointed, and guests introduced themselves.

 

Minutes

Alan Schreiber announced that editorial corrections sent by Herb Teas and Andrew Jensen had been made to the Minutes.

 

 

Treasurer’s Report by Ann George

Ann George reviewed the WSCPR Balance Sheet. Including the credit of $1 million made to the account at the beginning of the fiscal year in July, a carryforward of approximately $140,000, overspent projects (funds will be recaptured) of approximately $20,000, Commissioner travel and unbudgeted administrative costs of about $17,000 and funds allocated to projects in FY2000 to date, approximately $765,123 remainded available at the beginning of the meeting. Ann George indicated that if all current project proposals totaling $278,287 were funded, a balance of $486,836 would remain at the end of the day. She then recapped expenses and income from the 1999 Washington State Pest Control Tour, which showed WSCPR breaking even on the tour this year.

 

 

Ann George addressed pre-allocation of funds and whether this should be planned for in the future. She observed that the Commission would have approximately $450,000 allocated to new mandate funding if all current proposals were approved. This brings immediate need for a decision regarding forward spending for new mandate proposals. Herb Teas noted that the “political” nature of WSCPR combined with recent voter approval of I695, increases the potential for a cut in funding. Alan Schreiber readjusted the old/new mandate spending totals for the current meeting as one project had been misidentified. This adjustment shifted $15,000 from proposed new mandate to proposed old mandate funding totals. Bob Berger asked about the need for a contingency fund. Alan Schreiber said that nothing in the legislation indicates need for separate $50,000 contingency funds for both mandates. Ann George recalled discussion from a previous meeting concluding that new mandate proposals would not likely be emergency projects and would therefore not call for a contingency fund. Alan Schreiber pointed out that since WSCPR has never gone into the red, the need for a contingency fund has never arisen. Chuck Masters asked if proposal submission is relatively stable throughout the year or if more are received in the fall. Alan Schreiber replied that proposals have generally been climate related. The majority of applicants submit proposals at the beginning of the year. Herb Teas pointed out that the January rush is related to funding procedures of other funding entities (ie commodity groups).

 

 

Stewart Pfaff observed that the administrator might spend more time on the activities of one mandate than on the other. Herb Teas asked if allocations to cover administrative fees should be made retroactively. Doug Walsh pointed out that there are more new mandate proposals this time because the November meeting was originally scheduled as a new mandate project meeting. Alan Schreiber pointed out that a substantially lower proportion of matching funds come from new mandate proposals. Ann George said that the current system would work for this year. January wouldn’t pose problems as it is scheduled to be an old mandate meeting. By March, the Commission will know if the legislature changes anything in regard to funding. Stewart Pfaff indicated that it would be best not to make a decision now because it is unclear as to how much time new mandate activities will take. Alan Schreiber said it is hard to track time spent on the new mandate vs. the old mandate. While new mandate proposals create 50% more work, other activities are difficult to define—he suggested that the Administrative fee be divided down the middle. Doug Walsh indicated that he doesn’t see any decline in new mandate proposals in the future. Bill Green agreed with Stewart Pfaff that the Commission should defer a decision; perhaps until the May “mop-up” meeting. Doug Walsh questioned whether March new mandate proposals would be tabled because 50% of funding has already been allocated.  Herb Teas voiced the opinion that it wasn’t necessary to make this decision at this time.

 

 

Administrator’s Report

Alan Schreiber indicated the accounting of hours spent on WSCPR activities by ADG, Inc. located in the Commissioners’ notebooks. A second page indicating the Commissioner Attendance Record is also present. Schreiber then summarized a letter the Hop Commission received from their Attorney General regarding patentable projects. This letter, received by Ann George, indicates that such projects should not be funded. Richard McCartan, WSCPR’s AG claims that if WSCPR is not gifting money and if the project serves the public and fits its mandate, it CAN fund such projects. If done correctly, patentable projects, thus, can be funded. However, the opinion continues that if the project is patentable and profitable, the Commission may wish to require a donation from the profits. Stewart Pfaff asked if this relates to out-of-state money. Bob Berger referred to McCartan’s previous letter stating that it is “questionable whether evaluating a piece of equipment would fall under the WSCPR mandate”. It could if it were incidental to a broader research project.

 

1999 Washington State Pest Control Tour Evaluation

Alan Schreiber briefly described the Washington Pest Control Tour as the biggest event staged by the Commission. In 1999, he reported, attendance from registrants was down, primarily due to hard times in the agrichemical industry. Between the Thursday before the Tour began and Monday when it started, Schreiber reported that about 15% of registered participants canceled out. Things happen. Family crises arise. People get sick. This decline caused a last minute reduction in busses from two to one. In the end, one bus appears to be more efficient and cost-effective. 1999 also marked the first time the tour “traveled”, or didn’t return to the same hotel every night. One of the highlights this year was a schooner tour of Willapa Bay which focused on the spartina and oyster problems, but also featured burrowing shrimp. A survey was sent to all Tour participants. For the most part, responses fell in the Excellent to Good range. A summary of Tour Evaluations including ratings and comments was provided to all Commissioners. Alan Schreiber asked each Commissioner who attended the Tour to give a brief comment. Andy Jensen said it was very interesting and very good. Bill Mason was impressed that all parsnip seed being produced for England is provided from 5-acres in Washington. He said he learns something new every year and that he finds it amazing how much seed is grown on such a small amount of land. Doug Walsh said he was most impacted by a tour of the Weyerhaeuser Nursery. Alan Schreiber concluded by stating “we are making plans for a tour next year.”

 

Other Issues

Schreiber briefly touched upon the “Sustainable Ag issue”. He indicated that there has been a vague expression of dissatisfaction from this group, an undercurrent. This exists despite the fact that WSCPR is the single largest funder of organic projects in the PNW. When he spoke with Washington Tilth in this regard, he indicated that they were surprised that WSCPR thought there was a problem. They are happy with the Commission and its activities. Bill Green previously suggested that WSCPR get a State Credit Card. This would provide for discounts on some things and may be easier for accounting purposes. Several Commissioners and Schreiber offered an opinion on this. General consensus was that until a more definitive need for a credit card exists, the vehicle would not be pursued.

 

The Ag President’s Group 2000 Position Paper was presented. The Administrator asked Commissioners if WSCPR should join as a supporter of this paper. General consensus is no. As a body that is funded directly from the state, it would not be a good idea. Alan Schreiber asked for Commissioners’ approval to minimally amend the RFP to eliminate what appears to be vague wording about timing of proposal submission (30-day deadline). He would like to clarify the due date for proposals and dates of meetings at which old and new mandate proposals will be accepted. Someone questioned him as to why old mandate proposals need to be received 30 days prior to meetings if they don’t need an outside, expert review. The answer to this is that both new and old mandates should receive equal treatment. Doug Walsh asked if there was a trigger method to email people if there is a change in RFP. In general, Commissioners did not think this necessary.

 

In his absence, Kurt Volker, newly nominated Commissioner, wrote a letter to the Commission. Although voting by proxy is not permitted, he voiced his opinions and comments on the topics before the meeting. Alan Schreiber announced that the ADG, Inc. offices had moved within Pasco. However, to alleviate confusion, the old address will remain valid for WSCPR business. Phone and fax numbers will also stay the same. Schreiber announced that an emergency proposal received late on November 9 would be presented later in the meeting. He also noted that a replacement proposal for one received prior to the cutoff would be distributed to Commissioners. 

 

Alan Schreiber again addressed the potential that WSCPR funding could become victim to the most recent budget cuts. He asked Commissioners whether actions should be taken to monitor events in Olympia.  He suggested that commodity commissions having benefited from WSCPR funding in the past be contacted to assist in legislative monitoring. Bob Berger indicated that he thinks WSCPR money is safe. He asked about the status of the WSCPR MOU with WSU. Was a document finally executed after the relatively lengthy debate (last July)? Was it rewritten? He suggested that the existing MOU and its revisions be reviewed in regard to WSU’s ability to cut WSCPR appropriations. In regard to legislative monitoring, Ann George sees no need to hire anyone. Related commodities should be alerted to the concern. A one-page recap of WSCPR activities and successes should be prepared with a paragraph on the new mandate and projects funded by the new mandate to date. This piece should be sent to commodity groups that have lobbyists, such as Ag Presidents Group. Alan Schreiber said that he would prepare the document and attend the upcoming Ag President’s Group meeting. A particular effort will be made to involve new groups, such as Washington Tilth. Art Linton reported that the WSU lobbyist will be monitoring the situation.

 

Meeting Dates

Due to cancellation of the September meeting, WSCPR meeting dates for the coming six months were set. Commissioners agreed to schedule the meetings as follows:

 

Friday, January 7: Sea-Tac potentially in the Conference room at the Airport

Thursday, March 9: Moses Lake, potentially at the Hallmark Inn

Wednesday, May 17: Puyallup: potentially at the Almondinger Center

 

Art Linton suggested that the Commission decide upon a day of the week and week of the month and set meetings farther in advance. Alan Schreiber suggested the 2^nd Wednesday of every other month starting in July. Ann George questioned whether it is worth placing meetings at the four corners of the state. Meeting locations were originally set to encourage community participation, but this proved not effective. A set location, most convenient for researchers and Commissioners should be determined. Alan Schreiber announced that the cut-off date for proposals would remain as previously indicated for the January meeting: December 15.

 

Project Proposals

00AN007: Integrating Tactics for Insect and Spider Mite Management in Red Raspberry

Request: $13,507; Match: $13,507

Lynell Tanigoshi, WSU Extension, Vancouver

The proposal requests funding to expand an IPM program that has proved successful over the past few years. Additional funding is needed to keep the movement going. Large-scale trials will be conducted on three different farms. Newer weevilcides and miticides will be tested under field conditions. Biorational insecticides and new formulations and biotypes of Bt for orange tortrix control will be tested under field conditions. Treatments, applications and various mechanical and air assisted fertilizer applications will be compared. The preponderance of funding is for equipment (a tractor) and employees. The tractor will be leased.

 

Discussion: Herb Teas confirmed that the request is for just one year. Bryan Sakuma voiced his support by stating that this is a good project. Foreign matter such as insects and mites in food is a two-fold problem that effects both quality and yield. He would like to see some larvacide chemicals. Lynell Tanigoshi said that they are working with new inimopathic nematodes that go after larvae. Biopesticides have had good success with strawberries. There are some new technologies from Europe that are especially good for cool weather.  Ann George asked if there might be some crossover benefits for other crops from this work. Lynell Tanigoshi explained that lots of his work has been crossing over into ornamentals.

 

 

Herb Teas suggested hearing all proposals prior to voting on them. The Chair suggested letting the decision on this project stand and having the balance of proposals go to the consensus.

 

00AN016: Evaluation of Scab Immune Apple and Pear Cultivars and Selections

Request: $5,920; Match: $5,920

Gary Moulton, WSU-Mt Vernon

Scab is a big problem on the west side and new strains are coming into being. The project proposes looking at varieties to see which are scab immune. Scab immune varieties would reduce the use and cost of pesticides. A trial conducted since 1990 has identified some promising varieties that are both disease resistant and produce good fruit quality. For those interested in growing organically, information gathered on other diseases during these trials will also be important.

 

Discussion: Chuck Masters confirmed that it takes quite a while to breed traits into quality varieties. Gary Moulton said that with apples this seems to be working quite well. Pears are a different story. Scab isn’t as persistent in pears as it is in apples. It takes a while to get quality and resistance combined. Masters continued by asking how long one could expect the immunity to last once it had been achieved. Moulton? answered that there probably hadn’t been enough planted yet in this country to be able to predict. As more are planted, the resistance breakdown will probably go faster.  Field days are held to test varieties. Actual ratings have not been conducted because funding isn’t available, however several factors such as storability and flavor have been noted. Resistance to other diseases is observed as well. Ann George questioned the role of WSCPR in market acceptability, quality, etc. This seems to be outside our purview. Where will the line be drawn on IPM development items as far as short-term vs. long-term benefits? Where does WSCPR fit in the development of resistant varieties? The new, immune varieties will have to compete in quality with what already exists. Moulton responded that they are taking advanced selections from already-accepted varieties. When you get to the advanced-selections stage, the time frame is much shorter. Doug Walsh says this is opening a floodgate for new plant breeding. Alan Schreiber said that it is unconscionable to question a proposal because it could initiate a large number of other proposals to be submitted. Someone repeated that the market place should determine whether or not varieties are selected. Stewart Pfaff observed that down the road, we are going to have to address the GMO issue—products that will or won’t be accepted for export. Alan Schreiber summarized that overall, there are elements in the proposal that clearly fall within the WSCPR mandate.

 

00AN027: Evaluation of Unusual Fruit for Alternative Crops

Request: $1,530; Match: $1,530

Gary Moulton, WSU-Mt Vernon

The project proposes to look for alternative crops that are friendly to the conventional grower as far as disease resistance and are consequently more organically friendly. For example, currants will be evaluated because there has been interest shown in growing currants in the area. Hearty kiwis would be studied as well. The project will collect data on fruit quality, yield and adaptability to Puget Sound climate conditions. It will continue to evaluate cultivars for disease resistance and to identify disease problems. Many new crops show no or very few pest problems.

 

Discussion: Chuck Masters asked whether this research is acceptable to the Commission’s mandate. This decision is ultimately up to the commissioners. Alan Schreiber said that his initial opinion had been that it did not fall into the guidelines. However, the new mandate phrase “any aspect of integrated pest management” would include such work as it addresses disease and pest management. He reminded Commissioners that the proposals they fund set policies. This is new mandate, and thus new proposal territory. If the Commission chooses not to fund it—then a boundary has been set. If they are collecting information on disease and pest susceptibility, then it falls within the mandate. Bob Berger confirmed his understanding that the project has been funded since 1997 and runs through 2004. Doug Muse asked whether the intent was to farm to commercial standards and apply pesticides where necessary? Moulton replied that one objective of the project is to determine how friendly cultivars are to organic cultivation. Ann George asked how it would be possible to truly evaluate a crop when it is a new species to the area? Bryan Sakuma confirmed that this is one year of funding for a multiple-year project.

 

BREAK FOR LUNCH at 12:25

 

Meeting reconvened  at 12:45

 

OOAN017: Biological Control of Leafrollers

Robert S. Pfannenstiel, USDA-ARS Wapato

Request: $40,800; Match: $50,000

 

Pheromone-based codling moth management programs tend to experience leafrollers as their most significant pest problem. Control tactics for leafrollers that are compatible with pheromone-based pest management must be developed. Four species of parasitoids have been shown to cause significant mortality to leafrollers, but lack of overwintering hosts limits biological control in orchards. The project proposes improving biological control of leafroller in orchards by exploring means to improve and encourage overwintering of parasitoids. Parasitic wasps have to spend the winter outside the orchards and then recolonize in the spring. This leaves the first generation of leafrollers without sufficient controls. Data collected thus far indicates potential to improve biological control through the introduction of A. comptana populations into orchard and near-orchard habitats and to provide alternative overwintering hosts. Funding would support two technicians, travel and various operations including growing large numbers of potted apple trees and taking these trees into the orchard to infest.

 

Discussion: Alan Schreiber asked how soon realistically, conservatively, growers could expect substantial relief as a result of this project. The estimate is two or three years. Would this project be valuable only to organic growers? It is probably suitable for soft programs, but likely not useful if OPs are used. It would be applicable to mating disruption programs. Implementation on one or two large organic farms could be possible within one or two years. Chuck Masters asked how widespread the research is. Four sites from 2-800 acres are proposed. Ann George asked how often sampling was conducted and what kind of a workload the project demanded. Hauling trees is a full time job for one person at one location.

 

00AN018: Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Hop Yards: Screening the Impact of Pesticides on Survival and Function

Request: $15,250; Match: $15,250

David James, WSU-Prosser

David James is a new researcher from New Zealand who assumed Wyatt Cone’s position. This project proposes integration of biological control with chemicals. The compatibility of predators and chemicals in a system will be considered.  It is a three-year program because of the number of chemicals and beneficials involved. Field trials may be conducted later to back up what was done in the lab. Direct toxicity as well as long-term, overall effects of combined use will be observed. The end result will be a list of available chemicals that are compatible with beneficials.

 

Discussion: Alan Schreiber questioned if testing with field populations would be the best method; there is so much variation. David James explained that this is not perfect, but the only way. Andy Jensen asked about procedure. If 50 beneficial species are of interest, will each be tested with each chemical. Bob Berger asked how soon the industry could benefit from this work. Results will come out progressively— results will be useful as soon as they come out.

 

00AN019 Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Vineyards: Screening the Impact of Pesticides on Survival and Function

Request: $15,250; Match: $15,250

David James, WSU-Prosser

The purpose and procedures of this project are the same as those indicated above, in Project 00AN018. The difference will be in the crop and in the pests.

 

00AN020: Inherited Sterility in Irradiated Oriental Fruit Moth: The First Step in the Development of a Sterile Release Program

Request: $46,852; Match: $89,852

Holly Ferguson, USDA-ARS, Wapato presented in the absence of Lisa Neven, who was out on maternity leave.

This is a three-year project with the goal of eradicating the Oriental fruit moth. The current means of controlling the pest is through cold treatment or methyl bromide fumigation, post harvest. Cold treatment can be expensive and both means may cause extensive loss of fruit quality. Sterile insect technique has been used successfully to reduce and sometimes eradicate insect pests. Year 1: determine optimal dose and stage for adult sterility. Year 2: Competitiveness study of sterile insects. Year 3: Field release. The funding request would be used primarily to support a researcher from Poland.

 

Discussion: How much of the travel expense will go to national and regional meetings. Approximately half. Doug Walsh pointed out that Oriental fruit moth is of most concern to soft fruit, late season soft fruit in CA. Alan Schreiber asked how much of a problem the Oriental fruit moth is in Washington. Holly Ferguson replied that WSDA conducted a survey in 1999 to determine the location and extent of pest problems. Results are not yet available. Herb Teas asked if parallel techniques with those of the coddling moth were to be used. Alan Schreiber asked if this method of control would be valuable to organic growers? Does organic production allow the use of genetically-modified species? The Washington organic people don’t yet have a position on this. John Brown said that the technology is supported in Canada. Alan Schreiber asked how the sterile male coddling moth is doing in Canada. Brown said that is sounds promising. The program is still underway. Herb Teas asked whether there would be a budget shift if the Tree Fruit Research Council didn’t fund the project. One expert review suggested shifting the timeframe needed for research from one to two years. Will that still hold?

 

00AN021: Development of Herbicides for Integrated Weed Management in Conventional and No-Tillage Dry Pea, Lentil and Chickpea

Request: $15,995; Match: $9,500

Joe Yenish, WSU-Pullman

Joe Yenish reported that there is an increase in no-till farming of peas, lentils and chickpeas. Afilia type peas have proved best for no-till. No-till crops require more and different herbicides than conventional farming. It has also become clear that growers can get more out of control products by using accurate timing. This project proposes to screen herbicides that have proved efficacious during the past three-year study. Trials will monitor efficacy, rates and timing. As legumes are the worst crop for carryover (they are replanted to winter wheat) there is also need to set up a carryover study.

 

Discussion: Alan Schreiber pointed out that this project is in its third year of funding and asked if any products were in the IR-4 pipeline. Sulfentrazone is. Schreiber encouraged Joe Yenish and the Dry Pea and Lentil Council to move products from this project into the IR-4 program—soon. Stewart Pfaff indicated that no-till is still in it’s infancy and that some of the chemicals the industry has been using for conventional farming just don’t work. Bob Berger asked if the project would cover both conventional and no-till farming techniques. It would.

 

00PN022: Control of Powdery Mildew in Washington Sweet Cherries

Request: $26,440; Match: $49,600

Glen Davis for Gary Grove, WSU-Wenatchee

The project would screen unregistered and registered fungicides for efficacy against powdery mildew and compare calendar versus weather-driven sprays using registered fungicides. An increase from last year’s budget was made so that trials could be conducted in both Prosser and Wenatchee.

 

Herb Teas noted that Gary Grove has been very effective in tree fruit research.

 

00PN023: Control of Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot in Washington Wine Grapes

Request: $30,766; Match: $43,550

Glen Davis for Gary Grove, WSU-Wenatchee

This project is very similar to 00PN023. Unregistered and registered fungicides would be screened for efficacy against powdery mildew and bunch rot. Calendar versus weather-driven sprays of registered and unregistered fungicides would be tested. Late season fungicide treatments for the suppression of cleistothecia production would be made. Washington wine grape growers will have access to results of screenings on the web:  http://disease.tfrec.wsu.edu. A report indicating results from the 1999 project was provided. A low inoculum in 1999 hindered definitive results. Some botrytis work was also conducted.

 

Alan Schreiber observed that the proposal did not seem to be completely updated from that submitted last year; Elevate has since been registered as an alternate to Vangard.

 

00AN024: Demonstration of IPM in Public Facilities

Request:  $22,000; Match: $16,000 in-kind

Art Losey, Washington State Pest Control Association

Art Losey explained the uniqueness of his proposal. There is increasing pressure from public and activist groups for school administrators and managers to adopt IPM programs. However, one true definition of IPM does not exist. There are many concepts ranging from no chemicals, to mixed control methods. There are a lot of biased surveys out there with less than accurate information. PTA groups have asked for help in regard to what true IPM is. The WSCPA sees the need and proposed to develop a demonstration CD-ROM that will explain and define IPM pest control. This medium will show that there are some pests (bees, wasps) that are hard to control. It will show what can and cannot be done. The CD-ROM demonstration will bring information to the people who make decisions on public pest control issues as well as any other interested parties. The presentation will be available to view on a screen, on a laptop, in a gymnasium, wherever there are pests.

 

The request is for funding to support programming, editing, purchase of necessary supplies and travel. An in-kind match will consist of time spent by WSPCA employees and the resources the organization will provide (pictures, information that already exists). The National Pest Control Association is also willing to assist, mostly with in-kind support as they have resources that have already been developed. Thus, the in-kind match could increase considerably. The project will be under exclusive control of the WSPCA.

 

Discussion: Bob Berger asked if the CD-ROM would be distributed at no cost to viewers? Yes. How many CD-ROMs would this funding request produce? Herb Teas asked about the actual intent of the project. Is it a counter attack to no-spray people? Art Losey explained that it will educate decision-makers in the public pest control sector and will also be used as an instructional tool. The time frame for production is one year. A survey will be taken in the second year to determine its effect. Andy Jensen asked which user groups would benefit from this project. Those providing pest management services and those using pest management services. Alan Schreiber stated that the proposal clearly falls within the “demonstration” part of WSCPR’s mandate.

 

00AN025: Use of Cover Crops to Control Insect Pests in Brassicaceae Crop Production

Request: $25,099; Match: $1,900

Brad Klepetka, University of Washington

The project is designed to find non-chemical control alternatives for pests of the brassicaceae family. Four major pests would be targeted: cabbage maggot, various aphids, flea beetle and the lepidopteran complex. Organic growers often use cover crops to reduce erosion and to build soil health. If these crops could also control pests, the cost of production could be significantly reduced. Research performed by Klepetka in 1999 shows that vegetational diversity within a crop could reduce pest pressure. Plots with more weeds, appeared to contain fewer of three of the four major pests.  The proposed research would monitor the insect incidence of all four major pests, available soil moisture, and economic value of controls demonstrating some success by measuring yield, cost of inputs and labor. Observations would be made to ascertain that if a cover crop works for one pest, it also works with or at least not against efforts to control other pests. A few weeds proved to help control aphids, but a higher number would be needed for effective control, which would also decrease yield. Alternative cover crops would be sought to reduce the yield problem while still controlling pests. Not just controls, but the management tactics that go with them would be studied.

 

Discussion: Washington Tilth (the industry) does not offer a match of any kind, however an in-kind match from growers of $1,900 has been committed.  Bob Berger asked if it isn’t a host crop rather than cover crop that is really sought. Alan Schreiber asked if the project would get results this year that would help growers. He asked if the project would track loss from weeds as well as increased pest control costs. Yes. The yield loss last year was significant.

 

00AN026: Biological Control of Scotch Broom

Request: $14,238; Match: $51,962

Lisa Lantz, Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board

Scotch Broom has reached epidemic proportions in western Washington, where tens of thousands of acres are affected. Scotch broom has become a human health issue in the state because the plant is an allergen and a growing number of complaints are received. Tools are available to control small patches of the imported weed, but not to the extent to which it has spread in Washington; some effective herbicides are toxic to fish and other plants that could compete with the weed. Biological control, as part of an IPM approach, appears to be the only long-term solution that may reduce its dominance in the future. Two insects have shown promise. Funding would contribute to an international cooperative effort to control the weed.

 

Discussion: Alan Schreiber asked several questions provided by external reviewers of the proposal. Such work has never been done outside USDA system, why is it now? USDA refused the project because it is a regional problem that is not national in scope. Who is actually doing the work on this? CAB in Europe. Quarantine work would be done in Montana. Ann George asked if the WSCPR check would therefore be forwarded to Europe. Are any of the potential species in quarantine in the US? One is. Oregon is set up differently from Washington. The state has one person solely responsible for biological controls. When is the first field release of the insects? 2001 for the first, but it is impossible to venture a guess on the second one. What would happen to this project if the Commission doesn’t fund it? It would probably continue. There are several contributing states and nations.

 

EMERGENCY REQUEST

Long-term Fate of Glyphosate associated with Repeated Rodeo Applications to Control Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in Willapa Bay, Washington

Request: $8,000; Match: $26,000

Alan Schreiber presented the first Emergency Request received by the Commission. Kevin Kilbride, USFW, called with a request on November 9. Fish and Wildlife is in year three of a three-year study on use of Rodeo (glyphosate) to control spartina. The definition of how this project could be funded was changed, which stopped funding and the project. Kilbride has approached several groups to ask for assistance, to no avail. All studies conducted are according to GLP. Live of samples would expire by January and therefore be rendered useless. “Friends of Animals” have put up a legal challenge to the use of glyphosate in water. Data is needed to support continued use of the product. Results of the testing are predictable—they will show that glyphosate levels in the sediment are perhaps 100s of times less than alleged.

 

Discussion: Bill Green asked why the US Fish and Wildlife Service isn’t funding the project. Alan Schreiber pointed out that the Willapa Bay oyster growers would support the project in a heartbeat. Ann George asked why Fish and Wildlife can’t fund the project if it is so critical. The State is also working on this—why don’t they help? Ted Maxwell indicated that if the permit is really in jeopardy, Fish and Wildlife should pick up the cost. He pointed out however, that it would be too bad to lose the registration if they don’t get the samples analyzed. Bill Green would like to consult with his department, which is set up to fund such projects.

 

 

John Shields asked if WSCPR should put a letter out to affected groups to see if they support the effort (oysters growers, etc.).

 

Voting on the Proposals

Having heard all proposals, the Commission proceeded to vote on each individually.

 

00AN016: Evaluation of Varieties for Scab Resistance/Moulton

Herb Teas said this proposal puts the crop before the horse. Should find out whether crops are acceptable to the public before further testing. All initial screenings should be based on initial screening by the users.

 

 

Stewart Pfaff agreed with Herb Teas, the project should start with a variety that is acceptable to the public. Bryan Sakuma said he likes the idea of the project, but is not sure if it is properly structured. The ultimate goal is good. John Shields asked whether resistance to scab is the goal—what the researcher is looking for. If so, it is too far down the road to get results for this group. Stewart Pfaff suggested that the proposal be rewritten, with different priorities, and then resubmitted.

 

 

00AN027: Alternative Fruit Project/Moulton

Bill Green pointed out that this poses the same argument as the previous proposal, but even more so. Even if the crops prosper and grow, will anyone buy them?

 

 

00AN017: Biological Control of Leafrollers/Pfannenstiel

Herb Teas pointed out that the proposal had a good goal, is a good project. He voiced concern about immediate value to the industry. Alan Schreiber observed that this proposal requests lots of money and will be useful only on a small portion of the acreage. Doug Walsh asked if it could be done on a lighter scale. Bill Green asked what the chances are that commonly used OPs may be yanked by EPA. Alan Schreiber said that OPs are here to stay in tree fruit. Ann George asked whether the Commission intends to fund more basic, biological research. Novartis is trying to design an apple pest program without OPs. Chuck Masters stated that this seems to be the kind of project WSCPR should be heading toward. It takes time and money, but long term results shouldn’t scare us off. Doug Muse indicated that many old mandate projects come in on three-year plans. Bob Berger pointed out that it sometimes takes someone with vision to see valuable projects. John Shields asked why it is necessary to spread the project out to four sites? To test various alternative hosts?

 

 

00AN018: Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Hop Yards/David James

 

 

00AN019: Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Vineyards/David James

 

 

00AN020: Oriental Fruit Moth/Neven

 

 

Discussion: Matching funds are short. John Shields said he would like to see the survey results to ascertain need. Herb Teas said it is a high cost, big project. Chuck Masters questioned the financial aspects of the proposal.

 

00PN021: No-till herbicides for dry peas, lentils, chickpeas/Yenish

 

 

00PN022: Control of Powdery Mildew in Washington Sweet Cherries/Grove

Herb Teas pointed out that this is a good project that is high on the priority list for Tree Fruit Research Council funding. Ann George observed that the request is for lots of money. Herb Teas pointed out that the project covers more than just efficacy work. Doug Muse asked if this project could be conducted at a lesser cost. He pointed out that the treatment range and list of treatments to mitigate resistance is complicated and asked if WSCPR could fund one project and not the other. Bill Green suggested that this might compromise efficiencies of scale. Alan Schreiber suggested that if costs must be reduced, the solution is not to cut one crop. Such action would penalize one crop over the other. Grapes are in pretty good shape for powdery mildew. Cherries have fewer alternate controls. It was observed that the indicated matching money is all money going into Gary Grove’s work.

 

 

00PN023: Control of Powdery Mildew in Washington Wine Grapes

 

 

00AN024: IPM Demonstration CD-ROM/Losey

Alan Schreiber pointed out that the group is asking for a large sum of money for what they want to do. But, “I like the project.”  This is an area of extreme political activity. Herb Teas said it would provide a good education tool. No tools have been put together to explain IPM. Bob Berger said it is important to get IPM visualized and defined in the field.

 

 

Ann George suggested that WSPCA pursue a grant from EPA’s Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program. This is exactly the work for which those grants are tailored. She urged them to fully explore that avenue before coming back to WSCPR. Alan Schreiber asked how long it would take from the time of application to receipt of funds. Bill Green asked if delay would interfere with the project. It is really an environmental education grant. There are lots of other groups that fund such work. WSPCA should work with them—WSCPR should be the last resort. If this is a CD that can show IPM in the urban community, it could prove to be timely, and shouldn’t wait one full year for funding. We are losing position every week because there is no IPM. Ron Angel said that action should be taken soon. Herb Teas suggested that the Commission make funding contingent on an attempt to find other funding.

 

Bob Berger tabled his Motion.

 

 

00AN026: Brassica/Klepetka

The grower review of the project speaks for itself. Chuck Masters isn’t sure if the researcher will get a result any different than last year. Maybe there is a better way to structure the project. Doug Walsh pointed out that this project has a face—a graduate student needing funding, making it harder to turn down. Ann George asked how WSCPR can help organic producers in this state to understand that the point in development has arrived at which they need to participate at a higher level in their research. Other small commodities have divvied up matches (lettuce, rhubarb). The level of the project match bothers her greatly. If it is that important, they need to come up with some match. Andy Jensen agrees. Is the research being done to solve the problem or to do the research?

 

 

Alan Schreiber requested more guidance in the definition of “support information.” What does the Commission want? Bob Berger said the organic industry has to quit expecting everything for nothing. Herb Teas asked what a delay would do to the project. Bob Berger said that his concern is the whole effect on the organic community; they aren’t shouldering a share.

 

 

00AN026: Biological Control of Scotch Broom/Lisa Lantz

Bob Berger validated that Scotch Broom poses a serious problem in Western Washington and that in its native country, biologicals provide control. In its native country, the weed has demonstrated that it is susceptible to biological balance and is not overly competitive. We need to get some biologicals. Ann George indicated that signing a check to go overseas puts WSCPR into a precedent setting area. Herb Teas pointed out that they can’t do the work in the state. Alan Schreiber said he sees no greater problem sending a check to Oregon than to France. He encouraged the participation of Washington researcher, Piper. Bill Green observed that there is little accountability for the money once WSCPR sends the check. Ann George questioned the sum requested, which is greater than one third. It isn’t WSCPR’s fault; we shouldn’t have to pay extra for delinquency on past dues. Bill Green suggested asking for a more definitive explanation of the funding request.

 

 

Alan Schreiber announced that during the meeting, the Commission approved funding in the amount of $191,119 not including the potential $8,000 for the emergency spartina project. Stewart Pfaff requested more up-to-date data on what is going on with the emergency project and other attempts at funding.  The Administrator agreed to “micromanage” the request.

 

New Business

PICOL Support. John Brown, WSU, announced that a new schedule would temporarily halt the Federal portion of support for the Pesticide Information Center On-line. The result is a six-month gap in funding, which would threaten the program’s continuity. A shortfall of $10,500 will exist on January 1. Presently, 50% of the program is supported by the Commission and 50% by Federal funds

 

Bob Berger asked if is this funding would be within the authority of the Commission. Federal funding currently supports maintenance of the Picol database, which is directly linked to PNN. PNN is highly dependent on PICOL. WSCPR has a legislative mandate to support PNN. Bill Green suggested funding PICOL is kind of part of the WSPCR mandate. If we don’t support PICOL, we aren’t supporting a sufficient PNN. Ann George urged PICOL to submit a proposal to the Commission in January. Bill Green asked why WSCPR shouldn’t just give them the money now and prevent the hassle.

 

 

Jane Thomas, PNN Administrator formally thanked the Commission for its support.

 

Sustainable Agriculture Meeting. Bob Berger reported on a meeting he attended on November 4. The meeting was called by Jim Jesernig to determine what is expected from the government in regard to Sustainable Agriculture in the future. “Sustainable” has never been defined. Each person in attendance was polled for an opinion as to what is expected from the government. Director Jesernig will come back with these results. Bob Berger attended the meeting because there was concern that WSCPR had not supported the community in the past. Once he explained the high level of support provided by WSCPR, Bob Berger indicated that there was no further discussion.

 

Fiscal Agent. Alan Schreiber reported that at the next Commission meeting, he would put forward an issue that requires a vote by the Commission. Sandy Christian, WSU Fiscal Agent for WSCPR, will retire at the end of January. ADG is concerned about the loss and is working out a deal on behalf of the Commission to hire Sandy. ADG will probably take a reduction in its contract to give this money to WSU to hire back Sandy so that she can be retained for WSCPR work. It will require an amendment to the current ADG-WSCPR contract.

 

The meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm.