Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration
Minutes (Approved)
Wednesday, July 7, 1999
WSDA Office, Yakima
CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
Chair Tedd Wildman called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. Members and guests introduced themselves.
Members in attendance: Ann George, Mary Gilmore, Bill Green, Andrew Jensen, Bill Harlan, Bill Mason, Ted Maxwell, Doug Muse, Stewart Pfaff, Herb Teas, Doug Walsh, Tedd Wildman, Alan Schreiber, Tanya Wojtowych
Members not in attendance: Bob Berger, Mike Carrow, Dan Locke, Bryan Sakuma
Guests: Richard McCartan, WSCPR-AG; Art Linton, WSU-Liaison; Alan Berryman, WSU; Bill Dewey, Taylor Shellfish Company; Holly Ferguson, USDA-ARS, Wapato; Sandy Halstead, EPA-Prosser; Dave Horton, USDA-ARS Wapato; Howard Hughes, Roses, Inc.; Alan Knight, USDA-ARS, Wapato; Igor Krichtafovitch, High Voltage Integrated; Dan Mayer, WSU-Prosser; Alec McEhrlich, Cascadian Farms; Terry Miller, WSU-Pullman; Eric Miltner, WSU-Puyallup; Lisa Neven, USDA-ARS, Wapato; Kim Patten, WSU-Long Beach; Bill Sadelman, Columbia Basin vegetable seed growers;. USDA-ARS, Wapato
MINUTES
Commissioners reviewed Minutes from the May 11, 1999 meeting.
Ann George moved to accept the Minutes as presented.
Bill Harlan seconded the Motion.
No quorum being present, the vote was postponed.
Treasurer's Report
Alan Schreiber provided the Treasurer's Report. The fiscal year ended on July 30, so this is the first meeting of the new fiscal year, with the newly-mandated funds ($1 million for FY2000). The Treasurer's Report was less complete than usual due to the date on which this meeting fell. June budget expenditures were not included in the report, as these are not received from WSU until after the 11th of each month. Some unspent funds have not yet been figured back into the budget by WSU. The carryforward from the previous biennium is not yet calculated due to the masses of information calculated by the WSU fiscal agent at year end. According to rough estimation, the Commission has a minimum of approximately $1,014,189 to allocate through the coming fiscal year. For this reason, no conclusive figures were provided. The September Treasurer's Report will be more complete.
Herb Teas moved to accept the Treasurer's Report as presented.
Ann George seconded the Motion.
No quorum being present, the vote was postponed.
Administrator's Report
Discussion regarding the procedure for proposal review was necessary as the amended legislation promises to increase the time commitment, complexity and length of meetings required to address additional proposals. Discussion of the proposal review process was postponed until directly proceeding project presentation.
Alan Schreiber reported that the Commission has an opportunity to improve its administrative system. Sandy Christian, fiscal agent responsible for WSCPR transactions, will retire in December 1999 from WSU. Schreiber has informally spoken with Sandy Christian about continuing her work for the Commission. She is interested. He subsequently discussed this possibility with some members of the WSU Administration, who also believe a mutually beneficial arrangement can be made. Schreiber explained that Agriculture Development Group, Inc. has increased its administrative fee to accommodate the new legislation. ADG is willing to give up a proportion of this increase to hire Sandy Christian. Sandy Christian claims that access to the WSU mainframe is essential to her ability to carry out her work. From preliminary discussions, it appears that can be re-hired by the University for up to 40%. Schreiber envisions that she could work a portion of this time for WSCPR and a portion for ADG, for example: 10-15% for WSCPR and 10-15% for ADG. If WSCPR were to pursue this route, Alan proposed that ADG reduce its Administrative Contract by $10,000 (for example) which would go directly from the WSCPR budget to WSU to compensate Sandy Christian. General consensus directed Schreiber to pursue the possibility further and prepare a formal presentation for the September WSCPR meeting.
Doug Muse made the suggestion that each person presenting a proposal indicate what portion of the program is most important. This would allow Commissioners to fund projects even if only partial funding were available. Ann George indicated that this is a procedure implemented by the Hop Commission; researchers indicate "percentage value" on each section of the proposal. Doug Walsh asked if researchers would be allowed to stay through the discussion period. Tedd Wildman answered that meetings are public and cannot be closed. Ann George indicated that she appreciates having researchers available during the decision-making time to prevent Commissioners from voting without full understanding of a project.
Dan Mayer asked if he could present his proposal early.
00AN002 (99PN042) Integrated Pest Management of Lygus Bugs
Dan Mayer, WSU-Prosser presented the proposal. He explained that lygus bugs are serious pests on a great number of crops and are difficult to control. They often attack the plant during bloom. This makes control more difficult as any pesticides used at this time may endanger bees. Few effective pesticides are available that don't harm bees. The proposal covers many crops. Representatives of the Columbia Basin vegetable seed growers and Oregon and Washington alfalfa seed growers were present. Mayer explained that he has submitted another proposal for the work to Nevada.
The request is for funding to support a graduate student who will devote full time to work on Peristenus and some money to support Jeff Lundeen. In the early nineties, a new species of parasite that attacks lygus nymphs was discovered. Preliminary research determined that Peristenus is prevalent and common and in some areas, could kill up to 80% of the lygus bugs. More information on biology of the species is necessary.
Request: $36,578
Match: $21,590
Mary Gilmore confirmed that although the program appears to be three years in length, the funding request is only for one year. Results after one year will determine whether the projected is funded again. Alan Schreiber asked if the project intent is to manipulate the parasite to make it more effective? Could one grow and produce a larger population? Dan Mayer explained that the environment would be manipulated to encourage the parasites to grow. Foreign species are also available, but Mayer does not want to release these until more is known about the domestic species. Tedd Wildman asked the growers present if they had seen evidence in the field that made them suspect something was going on (the parasite was present)--without treating. Ann George pointed out that several special interest and grower groups currently show interest in the work; she asked if the potential exists that commodities may pick up a larger portion of the program after there are more results. Stu Pfaff asked whether lentils were included in the study. Mayer immediately took note to contact the Pea and Lentil Commission for support. The presentation concluded.
Return to Administrator's Report
Two Commissioners arrived during discussion, resulting in a quorum. A vote was called on the two outstanding issues.
Approval of May 11, 1999 Minutes
Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Approval of Treasurer's Report
Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Alan Schreiber proposed that the numbering system of proposals be changed to coincide with the fiscal year. The new numbering system would begin with the fiscal year and the identification system would be modified to indicate whether each proposal fits into the old or the new mandate. With the consent of Commissioners, the proposals presented at the meeting will be re-numbered.
Alan Schreiber reported ADG administrative hours spent on WSCPR business since the last meeting, which were much higher due to Tour preparations. He indicated an updated Commissioner address list located in Commissioner notebooks. He reported that four seats on the Commission are eligible for appointment: forestry, ag-chem, professional applicators and structural pest control. Letters have been sent to all groups indicating the need to appoint a new Commissioner. In the vegetable seed arena, requests were sent to 20 organizations; one recipient, Washington Tilth, is very interested in making a nomination. Nominations must be submitted during July so that the Governor can make appointments prior to the next regularly-scheduled meeting. Schreiber also reported that thank-you letters had been sent to those legislators supportive of WSCPR's new legislation.
Washington Pest Control Tour
1999 marks the fourth annual Washington Pest Control Tour. Significant interest has been expressed, however, confirmed registrations, 62 to date, are down from 1998, when 77 individuals attended. Registration forms are still coming in. Agri-chemical company representatives are lacking this year because of hard times in the industry. Alan Schreiber invited all Commissioners to attend part or all of the Tour. The Tour schedule was reviewed.
PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS
The term "peer review" has proved problematic and is not the most appropriate choice of words for the process. Originally, it was understood that only new projects should be sent out for review. Now there is debate as to whether all, or only select proposals should be reviewed by an outside body. Concern has been voiced as to how the process is handled. Options include: 1) send out only projects that are beyond the scope of the Commissioners and the Administrator; 2) to "be fair", send ALL proposals out for review.
Doug Muse voiced concern that negative reviews may reflect personalities, rather than content. If the Commission relies too heavily on reviews, the bias can be loaded. Selection of the process and choice of reviewers must therefore be seriously considered. Tedd Wildman suggested a peer review selection committee. WSCPR could identify a pool of reviewers that would be used. He suggested that the Commission cast a broader net and include not just PNW, but also national reviewers and that there be as little overlap as possible between reviewers and submitters. Alan Schreiber emphasized that "peer review" is inaccurate as it implies fellow-researchers. "External review" more accurately defines the process. For recent proposals received, he turned to one academician and one commodity group representative. He also indicated that it is necessary to make the process attractive to reviewers. Tedd Wildman again encouraged that in-state reviewers be included, but that national reviewers cannot be excluded. Bill Green pointed out that "equity" and "fair treatment" means someone who knows what they are doing looks at a proposal; if that someone is on the Commission, all is fair. Bill Harlan suggested that more complex projects be submitted for external review only if the issues are too complex. It would be overly burdensome to have all proposals reviewed. Mary Gilmore confirmed that there is no need for duplication of effort. Doug Walsh suggested that in light of the difference between old mandate and new mandate projects and proposals, which demand larger sums of money, and longer times of execution, it may be beneficial to establish one meeting per year as a new mandate funding meeting. Old mandate proposals could be submitted throughout the year. Alan Schreiber explained that the reason funding meetings do not take place just once each year is because WSCPR must mesh with funding cycles of other commodity groups and because some issues must be addressed immediately. Herb Teas agreed that splitting the review of proposals from the two mandates would make sense. New mandate issues are not emergency issues. A split schedule would also allow time for sub-committees and advisory groups to form and review complicated proposals. He suggested that new mandate proposals be considered once or twice each year. Ann George reminded that the contingency fund was established to address emergency situations. The new mandate doesn't need a contingency fund.
Commissioners concluded that there is no "fairness" issue involved; all proposals will be evaluated, by the Commission and/or by external review. Ann George indicated support for dedicating one or two meetings each year to addressing new mandate proposals. Alan Schreiber indicated that logistically, this would be easy. Meeting announcements requesting new mandate proposals and indicating deadlines would be sent out when RFPs are mailed (which is twice each year). Bill Green pointed out that now, as the Commission will have a greater ability to outspend its funds, it may need to see all proposals out on the table to know which should be funded. Ann George suggested that to guarantee adequate funding for old mandate proposals, $100,000 should be set aside for emergency projects (increase the contingency fund).
Tedd Wildman asked researchers present for their opinions. Alan Berryman, WSU, indicated that he would rather have someone unknown review his work--not a fellow researcher. He said, "The way you are doing it is fine." Dan Mayer agreed with Berryman stating that peer review is too personal. "It is fine the way you are doing it."
Ann George asked Richard McCartan for advice in regard to proposals for projects that would generate commercial, patentable equipment. She suggested that the RFP include the question: "Will this eventually generate a patentable technology." If WSCPR funds a patentable technology, who owns the rights?
Art Linton stated that he can understand both sides of the external review debate. In fairness, all proposals should be sent out. On the other hand, there is no need to send out for review those that are easily understood by members of the Commission. The Administrator should have discretion over this decision. Adding two reviewers for each proposal--as the Administrator did for this meeting--is exceptionally favorable. Stewart Pfaff said the Commission should rely on the Administrator's judgement to send out those proposals in need of external review. Anything Commissioners don't understand, can be turned down until they do. Herb Teas suggested that perhaps one or more of the Commissioners could be involved in the external review processes. He also asked that specific questions be formulated for each proposal under review, rather than requesting a rote 1, 2, 3.
Ann George moved that WSCPR continue to request that the Administrator submit proposals, at his discretion, to a minimum of two reviewers--one academician and one commodity representative--prior to Commission meetings, for the purpose of reviewing technical issues and any questions that may not be clearly answered in the proposal.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Ann George and Herb Teas amended their Motion at the request of Alan Schreiber.
Bill Green suggested that there be a definite line drawn. Criteria for external review should be that the information in the proposal is beyond the expertise of the Commission. As stated in the RFP, this is the criteria. Doug Muse called for the question. Ann George clarified that there is a broad range of expertise on the Commission. When proposals go beyond the expertise of the Commission, then additional expertise should be sought. She also indicated that an appeals process be established. If anyone thinks they have been dealt with unfairly, they can appeal the process. Doug Walsh pointed out that there are two mandates that need two different procedures.
Unanimous approval by voice vote.
Ted Maxwell suggested that WSCPR meetings be scheduled on a quarterly basis. Stewart Pfaff agreed that one meeting per year should suffice for new mandate proposals. Another suggestion was to establish a spending cap for the first meeting and convene twice each year. Alan Schreiber said he would like to continue to accept proposals at each meeting. If there are quarterly meetings, two should accept new mandate proposals and two should accept old mandate proposals. Ann George suggested four meetings per year for the purpose of considering proposals, such as November and March for old mandate proposals, two for new mandate proposals and one meeting for administrative issues. The July meeting would be dedicated to cleaning up the agenda and visiting one or more high profile projects. Emergencies would be considered at any meeting. Doug Muse indicated that he is against two-day meetings. Ted Maxwell suggested that WSCPR consider quarterly meetings for the old mandate, and two meetings for new mandate, as the Commission wouldn't want people to have to wait more than a quarter to present. Herb Teas said that if long-term projects are continued, there will be less review process required each meeting; progress reports would be heard.
Ann George moved that WSCPR consider proposals submitted under the new mandate twice a year, with a maximum of 50% of the new mandate money available at the first- and the remainder of the funds available at the next meeting scheduled to consider new mandate proposals; original mandate proposals would be considered at three meetings each year; the remaining meeting would be dedicated to clean-up and disbursement of contingency funds. WSCPR will consider emergency requests at any scheduled meeting.
Ted Maxwell seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote.
Commissioners agreed that September and January meetings would be designated for new mandate proposals. November, March and July meetings would review old mandate project proposals and the May meeting would be used for clean-up.
The Meeting reconvened at 12:30 after a 10-minute break for lunch.
Alan Schreiber reviewed the process he followed for proposals currently before the Commission. 14 proposals were received: 3 old and 11 new mandate proposals. 7 were sent out for review to one academic and at least one commodity reviewer. Reviews appear directly after proposals in the notebooks.
Project Proposals
00AN001 (99PN041) Integrated management of greenhouse rose pests
Howard Hughes, Chairman of Roses Inc. Research Committee, presented the proposal.
The Roses Inc. Research Committee funds $60-80,000 of research each year. A bylaw recently passed will increase the organization to represent all cut flower growers. Foreign competition, insect pests and disease have reduced the US rose industry from 250 to 150 growers. Insect pests, primarily mites, aphids and thrips are the primary factors reducing quantity and quality of rose production. The fact that over 80% of the US market is now provided by imported cut flowers puts immense pressure on growers to provide premium quality at competitive prices. The greenhouse cut flower environment is also ideal for development of insect and disease problems. Forcing plants further renders them more susceptible to pests and disease. These factors, in addition to the need for low re-entry intervals because growers must enter greenhouses to work and harvest more than once each day, emphasizes the industry need for an IPM program to control pests. Without the current variance from EPA, the industry would lose $30-60,000 each year. The industry is extremely interested in biologicals for all these reasons and Alan Berryman has a novel approach. He believes that if you can control all things in the biosphere, you can control the crop. The purpose of the project is to design a system that growers can use to anticipate crop protection requirements and guide them in application of the most appropriate control methods.
Request: $32,464
Match: Roses Inc. $10,000; WSU $28,222
Doug Muse noted that the WSU match is high. He asked if the figure includes salaries? It does. He also suggested that greenhouse space be added to the in-kind match. Herb Teas asked how progress could be measured on a year-to-year basis. Hughes explained that Roses, Inc. goes through an exhaustive review process each year and questions why a goal was or was not achieved. Ann George queried whether WSU salaries can be used as a match. Berryman responded that if he is putting money into the project, it shows that he believes it has validity. Ann George noted that either all salary matches or no salary matches should be included in total WSCPR accounting. Doug Muse asked for a prioritization of need should the project not be funded in full. Hughes answered that due to the complexity of the project, nothing specific can be separated out.
00AN003 (99PN043) Organic Raspberry Disease Control Study
Alec McEhrlich, Cascadian Farms, presented the request. Carol Miles, principal researcher, was not able to attend the meeting. McEhrlich explained that more large growers are getting involved in organic raspberry control. There is a trend toward cooler and wetter climates which increases the incidence of phytopthera and root rots. Pete Bristow, WSU, has been working for two or three years to find viable alternative methods to manage these diseases. Carol Miles' proposed work will build on his foundation.
Alan Schreiber reported that this proposal was reviewed by an external team. Carol Miles has attended many compost workshops over the past years that furthers her qualifications for the work. A webpage was indicated where results will be posted from Carol Miles' work. Tedd Wildman asked if this project would produce hard data? McEhrlich indicated that there would be no massive yield increase in the first year--maybe during year two or three. Doug Muse emphasized that the selection of sites is of great concern. Mary Gilmore pointed out the match to the funding request is heavily weighted toward the Pesticide Commission. This is primarily because WA Tilth does not have research funding available. A letter from a grower was provided that indicated where trials will be. Money has been requested, but not yet received, from a different source. Alan Schreiber asked that Commissioners not hold the minimal, or lack of, match against the organization this round.
00AN004 (99PN044) Developing a Pest Monitoring Plan for Burrowing Shrimp: A step towards Implementing Integrated Pest Management in Oyster Aquaculture.
Bill Dewey, Taylor Shellfish Company, presented the project on behalf of Pacific Shellfish Institute, an organization that represents shellfish from California to Alaska. Burrowing shrimp are abundant in the Pacific Northwest. They live in substrate and undermine oyster beds causing oysters to sink or be buried with sediment and die. Of the 45,000 acres in Willapa Bay, about 15-20,000 acres are infested by burrowing shrimp; approximately 3% of Grays Harbor is effected. Since the 1960s, Carbaryl has been used for control. However, due to regulatory constraints, reduced acreage every year can be treated. Work is being done on an environmental approach, but biocontrol for shellfish is about as controversial as chemical control. The primary objective of the study is the long-term goal of reducing pesticide use in affected estuaries while controlling burrowing shrimp.
Request: $24,010
Match: $12,573
Ann George asked what role the Department of Fish and Wildlife plays in the project. She also requested a breakdown of the salaries, and an explanation of the boat WSFW provides that appears in the WSCPR column. Alan Schreiber questioned why WSCPR should pay for boots, rain gear and administrative support for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
00AN005 (99PN045) The Electron Wind Generator: Elimination of Pathogens in Potato Storage
Igor Krichtafovitch, High Voltage Integrated, presented a project request on behalf of the potato industry. He indicated that about 5% of stored potatoes are lost, mostly to fungi, during the first month of storage; this proportion increases as time goes on. Krichtafovitch requested funding to develop an electron wind generator that would eliminate bacteria and fungus by electrical means. He brought a prototype machine to demonstrate its function. Elimination would be aided in four ways: ionically, by limiting and controlling the amount of ozone, by distributing collecting plates for particles and by a corona discharge. The machine creates airflow and could be installed in place of existing blowers. Aside from minimizing the noise and blowing, the electron wind generator will also benefit electrical bills. As it now exists, the electron wind generator is qualified to eliminate current ventilators. It does not heat up the air but functions by destroying and then collecting the spores.
Request: $50,000
Match: $15,000
Bill Green asked for an explanation of the air movement. Doug Muse wanted to know the voltage requirement, which is downsized to 5,000 volts. Krichtafovitch noted that the machine has a patent-pending status. Funding would go toward a specific prototype designed for potato storage and toward testing its application. Ann George asked if the potato commission considers funding the project at this time. It does not, as the proposal is being submitted outside its funding cycle.
00AN006 (99PN046): Control of Green Peach Aphid and Colorado Potato Beetle on Potato Using Insect Growth Regulators
David Horton, USDA-ARS Wapato presented the proposal. He reported that there is currently heavy dependence on carbamates and organophosphate pesticides to control green peach aphid. To reduce reliance on FQPA-listed products, the project proposes to investigate insecticides with new modes of action. Horton's project would incorporate insect growth regulators into IPM programs for the green peach aphid and the Colorado potato beetle. The request covers salary and benefits.
Request: $13,770
Match: $18,550
00AN007 (99PN047) Integrating Tactics for Insect and Spider Mite Management in Red Raspberry
Lynell Tanigoshi was not present. The proposal was postponed for presentation at a future meeting.
00AN008 (99PN048) Effects of Mowing Height and Nitrogen Fertility on Pest Resistance/Tolerance in Home Lawn Turf
Eric Miltner, Research Agronomist, WSU-Puyallup presented the request. He pointed out that "lawn" is about the only touch many urbanites have with agriculture. Lots of reduced-input public information is being distributed in regard to lawns. There is very little data to back-up these publications as few good, hard numbers about inputs for lawns exist. This project proposes to show people what they can expect from minimum input. Two factors will be addressed: organic and conventional fertilizers and mowing height. Matching funds will be provided by Northwest Turfgrass Association.
Request: $1,500
Match: $1,500
Mary Gilmore asked if the project would proceed if it is not funded by WSCPR. The answer was unclear. Miltner further pointed out that many recommended IPM programs are currently being presented without facts behind them.
00AN009 (99PN049) Field Evaluation of a new Strain of Aphidius colemani against Myzus persicae in Potatoes
Terry Miller, WSU-Pullman, presented the project that would support organic potato production. Green peach aphid causes a different problem in organic and in conventional production (primarily because of storage). The aphid is the vector of potato leafroll virus and has been documented as transmitting over 150 plant viruses. There are many biological control agents available to growers wishing to control key pests in organic potatoes, however, using natural enemies requires intimate knowledge of the agroecosystem to be successful. This project proposes to: 1) demonstrate the benefits and biological impact of establishing localized outbreaks of non-pestiferous aphids in natural enemy banks; 2) determine the best host aphid/host plant combinations for natural enemy attraction to organic plantings of potato; 3) determine area of impact from natural enemy banks with the objective of planning for appropriate size and spacing; 4) determine appropriate predator/prey ratios for release rate and timing; 5) increase awareness of farm-level natural enemy conservation practices. assist in educating growers as to how they can create natural enemy banks in their fields.
Request: $ 9,640
Match: $ 13,000
Alan Schreiber asked how soon growers may be able to significantly benefit from the technology. Probably within two years.
00AN010 (99PN050) Introduction and environmental assessment of promising new aphid parasitoids for augmentative biological control of the pea aphid in organic sweet pea production.
Terry Miller, WSU-Pullman, presented the project with comments from Alec McEhrlich. He repeated that the pea aphid is a major problem. To get around this, organic growers plant early, and use the earliest-maturing peas. They consequently harvest early to avoid infestation, but suffer on yield. Slightly later varieties would significantly increase yield. The project proposes to look at the biological attributes of two different parasite species to see how they might be integrated into a management tactic for pea aphid.
Request: $ 11,960
Match in cash: $ 13,850; in kind: $5,000
Doug Muse asked whether reproduction of these aphids for a viable crop for research had been successful. Miller replied that this is one of the things they are looking; the ability to reproduce/multiply a population. In response to another question, he indicated that the size of organic pea crop in the state is around 3,000-3,500 acres. Ann George asked about crossover of equipment between Miller's projects. She also questioned whether funding in the future would be less, because equipment costs are up front. Because all organic growers are also conventional growers, this work could benefit all processors.
00AN011 (99PN051) Suppression of Orange Tortrix Leafroller and other key leafrollers in organically grown caneberries: Natural enemy evaluation and implementation.
Terry Miller also presented this request. He explained that organic growers have trouble with leafrollers. These are not so much a problem to plant growth, but to sanitation of the berries. (Worms stay in the berry and significantly decrease the value of the crop.) The project proposes to screen various enemies of leafrollers to determine how can they be reared and to discover what kind of host spectrum they have. Development of a good rearing program is a primary objective. Long term storage of predators is another area of discovery. How well these predators can be inexpensively integrated into the field, as well as what ratios can be put into the field for effective control, will also be explored.
Request: $24,350
Match in cash: $14,500; in kind: $18,000
Alan Schreiber noted the $40,000 match. He asked whether it was requested or committed money. Discussion regarding the value of equipment purchases ensued. Alan Schreiber suggested that Miller write down equipment requests specifically for all three proposals. Tedd Wildman asked how much time and energy would be needed to integrate with Bts?
00AN012 (99PN052) An Alternative Management Strategy for Codling Moth: Autocidal Biological Control
Lisa Neven and Holly Ferguson, USDA-ARS, Wapato presented the proposal and a revised budget which was distributed to Commissioners. Autocidal biological control of the codling moth involves inserting a gene that renders the eggs from a mating non-viable after exposure to temperatures below 68°F. The project is in the process of developing a technology to genetically alter the codling moth. Next, temperature experiments and field releases will be conducted. Justification for this project is that ultimately, success will reduce pesticide use against codling moth. It will be five to ten years before this could be out in the field. APHIS has a program that could speed up the process somewhat. The revised budget asks only for part-time support, rather than for the entire salary of Holly Ferguson. The Tree Fruit Research Commission has already provided partial funding.
Request: $31,129
Match: $ 93,832
00PN013 (99PN053): Registration of Arsenal for chemical control of Spartina in Washington estuaries.
Kim Patten, WSU-Long Beach, presented the proposal. Spartina is a severe problem on up to 10,000 acres in Willapa Bay. The cost that has gone into controlling these areas is phenomenal. About ½ million dollars was invested into the area and about 3 acres have been controlled. They are looking for ways to improve on the efficacy of Rodeo, but have not found anything that is feasible. Results based on work funded by the Commission last year, Arsenal showed exceptional, 100% control. The good news is that Am Cy is pursuing a Federal label for aquatic use of the product. The problem is that they are going for a fresh, not salt water label. A Section 18 will therefore have to be filed--and there has never been a Section 18 on an aquatic pest.
Request: $20,065
Match in cash: $1,000; in kind: $6,4500
00AN014 (99PN054) Implementation of Mating Disruption for Leafroller Pests of Apple and Pear
Alan Knight, USDA-ARS, Wapato presented the request on behalf of Brewster Areawide Management, a group that is attempting area-wide management of the leafroller and codling moth. The program began in 1997 and included 41 growers and 4500 contiguous acres (which is the largest mating disruption acreage in the world). Funding has come from five different sources including USDA and grower-assessments, but will be depleted at the end of 1999. The ultimate goal is to try to develop an integrated program that minimizes pesticide use. The organization has taken a group of growers and helped them to work together at the highest level. Injury was cut in half and less pesticides were used. WSCPR could help keep this project going to establish a fully-integrated system.
Request: $24,000
Match: in cash: $16,000, in kind: $30,000
Alan Schreiber asked what would happen if the WSCPR fails to fund the effort. The answer: BAM will go belly-up. Herb Teas asked whether the project was implementation or research. Knight stated that it is an implementation project. The actual match consists of the sum growers pay to buy all the product for 4,500 acres, which is worth about $30,000 in kind for growers. The cost is $27/acre for pheromone control, and about $15/acre for chemical control. The grower assessment of $3.50 per acre would be a reasonable match. Doug Muse confirmed that the program has been in effect for three years.
Vote on the Proposals Presented
00AN006 (99PN046)
Doug Muse said this is something potato growers have been seeking for years. It is a good project with a good match.
Herb Teas moved to accept 00AN006 (99PN046) in the amount requested.
Mary Gilmore seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote, with two abstentions: Doug Muse, Andrew Jensen
00PN013 (99PN053) Spartina Control
Bill Green moved to fund the project in full.
Mary Gilmore seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote
00AN014 (99PN054) Leafroller mating disruption
Ann George asked the presenter to resubmit an accounting of the match (which is grossly underestimated). Doug Muse was impressed that after only two years, there was already some results from the project.
Ann George moved to approve the request.
Bill Harlan seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with one abstention: Herb Teas
Ann George questioned Terry Miller on the budgeting of his requests. He had requested
$44,300 in equipment, but $31,000 would cover all equipment needed. Travel expenses were also questioned. Could some travel be combined between projects? Yes. Is there doubling-up on the match? $6400 from Commission, $2400 from Small Fruit.
She suggested that the Commission consider the equipment request separately. (See 00AN015).
00AN015 Equipment request totals $31,000
00AN004 (99PN044) Burrowing shrimp
Several explanations were provided. Benefits are disproportionately high because even though the worker is part-time, full-time benefits must be paid. Raingear is an example of the supplies that may be used for the project. A certain amount of supplies will be consumed during the course of research. There is no money to cover these costs. Rental of the boat (WSCPR paying for use) was an attempt to generate some revenue. If this is an important issue, then delete the boat rental. Delete equipment too if that is what it takes to get the grant through. Mary Gilmore asked if this project fits under the new mandate. It is implementation of IPM. Alan Schreiber answered that growers are under extreme pressure from state agencies to do this before they make an application of this pesticide. Will this help them to make better use of Sevin? An enhanced monitoring program may reduce the frequency and need for chemical applications. Ann George requested a revised project budget reflecting 31 cent mileage compensation.
Tedd Wildman asked what would happen if they only recieved one year of funding. The reply: that is fine. Stewart Pfaff asked if the $36,000 request is for three years? It is for one.
00AN005 (99PN045) Electron wind generator
Ann George asked if there is a match to this proposal for disease control in stored potatoes. Alan Schreiber explained that Batelle is contributing $18,000 to the project, which is the cost they put into developing the wind tunnel. CERTI is contributing $33,000 toward the mechanism. These amounts, however, do not reduce the request for $51,000 of the total request. Bill Harlan questioned patent issues. The machine has patent-pending status, but not for this use. Doug Muse has a problem that the players. They are big--they are not involved in this program and they will have the greatest benefit. Doug Muse would like to see this proposal re-submitted with at least a 50% match from one of the big industry beneficiaries. Herb Teas suggested that basic research on the technique needs to be done prior to development. In a phone conversation with the Administrator, Mike Carrow reported that the project will not completely solve the problem in stored potatoes. It would be part of an integrated pest management tactic--if it does work. It is a piece of the solution, not the solution. Doug Walsh suggested trying it on a small scale to show some data.
Herb Teas moved not to fund the proposal at the current meeting.
Stewart Pfaff seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with two abstentions: Doug Muse, Andrew Jensen
Alan Schreiber asked Commissioners to provide a list of reasons for their refusal for the researcher. The reasons include: 1) Need for more information; 2) Show the commercial benefit of this and obtain more support from the industry; 3) Patent explanation. This comes very close to "subsidizing a business".
Tedd Wildman suggested that for the remainder of projects, Commissioners just go down the list and vote.
00AN001 (99PN041) Greenhouse Rose Pests
Bill Harlan pointed out that there is not a 50% match. It is 33%.
Doug Muse moved to approve the proposal in the amount requested.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote.
00AN002 (99PN042) Lygus Project
Bill Harlan observed that this is an excellent program.
Bill Harlan moved to fund the proposal as requested.
Mary Gilmore seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with one abstention: Stewart Pfaff
00AN003 (99PN043) Organic Raspberry Disease Control
Doug Muse commented that the project could result in a "big bang for the buck" (it is cheap).
Doug Muse moved to approve the proposal in the amount requested.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with one abstention: Doug Muse.
00AN004 (99PN044) Burrowing shrimp IPM Monitoring
The revised total request with mileage reimbursement reduced was $24,760. Some discussion of the boat use charge took place and the boat rental cost was moved to "match" which reduced the total request to $24,010.
Ann George moved to approve the request in the amount $24,010.
Doug Muse seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote.
00AN008 (99PN048) Home lawn turf
Bill Harlan noted that he questions a few pests that could potentially be controlled, but, thinks that the program is good.
Ann Geooge moved to approve the proposal in the amount of $1500.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with one abstention: Bill Harlan.
00PN15 (99PN055)
Ann George moved to remove the equipment request from 99PN49, 50, 51, number the new proposal 99PN055 (now 00PN015), and approve it in the amount of $31,000.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote.
00AN009 (99PN049) Organic potato control
Stewart Pfaff moved to approve the proposal in the requested amount of $9,640.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with two abstentions: Doug Muse, Andrew Jensen.
00AN010 (99PN050) Aphid parasitoids
Doug Muse noted his disappointment that Watts farm is not involved.
Herb Teas moved to approve the proposal in the amount of $11,960.
Andrew Jensen seconded the Motion.
Motion approved unanimously by voice vote.
00AN011 (99PN051) Tortrix in organic caneberries
Ann George expressed appreciation for support from Cascadian Farms, but also hope that in the future, there are other sources of matching funds for this. Continue to encourage grower groups to contribute.
Ann George moved to approve the proposal in the amount of $24,350.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with one abstention: Doug Muse
00AN012 (99PN052) Autocidal biological control of codling moth
Alan Schreiber pointed out that this is the most basic research WSCPR has been asked to fund. It has forced the Commission to decide if we are shifting from short term results to long-term funding. The direct match of the project may be somewhat overstated. Doug Muse said he is impressed with the amount of money this does not cost; it is good technology that is affordable to us. The onus is on someone to get it into the field to where growers can use it. Mary Gilmore expressed that this is one of the most exciting projects WSCPR has funded.
Doug Muse moved to approve the project in the amount requested.
Mary Gilmore seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote with one abtention: Herb Teas.
other Buisness
Ann George moved that WSCPR maintain its existing policy for contingency funds and not initiate a contingency fund for the new mandate money.
Herb Teas seconded the Motion.
Unanimous approval by voice vote.
A short discussion in regard to forward spending started. How much should the Commission forward spend? A set amount is necessary. The Administrator was directed to put this on the agenda for the upcoming meeting.
Mary Gilmore and Bill Harlan both made announcements to mark their last meeting as Commissioners.
Mary Gilmore said, "It has been a pleasure meeting with and working with everyone on the Commission."
Bill Harlan said, "I enjoyed working with the group. It did a good thing for pesticide users. I was surprised by passage of the legislation."
Meeting adjourned at 4:25.
