Tuesday, May 11, 1999

Summit Inn, Snoqualmie Pass

CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS at 10:15 a.m.

Ann George called the meeting to order. Members and guests introduced themselves.

Members in attendance: Bob Berger, Mike Carrow, Ann George, Bill Harlan, Bill Mason, Doug Muse, Stewart Pfaff, Herb Teas, Bryan Sakuma, Doug Walsh, Tedd Wildman; Richard McCartan, Alan Schreiber, Tanya Wojtowych

Members not in attendance: Pat Boss, Mary Gilmore, Bill Green Dan Locke, Ted Maxwell

Guests: John Brown WSU-Pullman; Catherine Daniels, FEQL-WSU; Larry Ganders, WSU; Sandy Halstead, EPA; Heather Hansen, Lobbyist; Glenn Johnson, Tilth Producers; Bob Schell, WA Beekeepers Association; John Stark, WSU-Puyallup; Jamie Strange, (Walter Sheppard’s assistant researcher); John Stump, Bee Keeper.

Commissioners reviewed the Minutes from the March 16, 1999 meeting.

Stewart Pfaff moved to accept the Minutes as presented.

Herb Teas seconded the Motion.

Ann George presented the Treasurer’s Report. She summarized that if all anticipated costs to the end of FY1999 and all projects funded to date are taken into consideration, $166,000 remains to fund projects at the current meeting. Agriculture Development Group, Inc. provided a budget itemizing administrative costs. Ann George noted that administrative expenses to date total $13,000. Including special projects (Progress Report production and mailing) and the WSCPR Tour, the total comes to $15,133. Projected costs for FY2000 were also presented, but the Treasurer explained that in light of the new mandate and increased funding, it is difficult to project the FY2000 budget until a clearer picture of the new scenario can be determined.

Tedd Wildman arrived and assumed the position of Chair at the meeting.

Heather Hansen reported that the Governor signed the WSCPR Bill on Monday, May 10. Passage of this Bill will increase the mandate and the budget of the WSCPR in FY 2000. She indicated that the budget should be signed on May 17 or 18. If passed, the WSCPR Bill will be funded from July 1, 1999. WSU’s Safe Food Initiative (SFI) would be fully funded for the second year of the biennium (beginning July 1, 2000). In the end, Hansen reported that there was active support for the WSCPR action from environmental/organic farming groups. She suggested that Commissioners write a letter of appreciation to Valora Loveland, who was the individual primarily responsible for the bill’s favorable passage.

Heather Hansen also reported on other related issues that had been voted on by the State legislature. She indicated that the aquatic use of pesticides for spartina and millfoil, was expanded to include any aquatic pesticides registered since 1992 for use in lakes. The bad news is that experimental use permits for treating spartina did not make it through the process.

Bob Berger asked if the new funding is in the same pot as previous funding or is a line item that can be eliminated? Hansen said that it is in the same pot as the previous funding. Bob Berger tried to reconfirm that WSCPR won’t need to request the funds every two years. Larry Ganders, WSU lobbyist, explained that funds approved are appropriated funds, so there is expectation that they will carry over from year to year.

Chair Tedd Wildman requested that an official letter of thanks be drafted and sent to Valora Loveland and Gary Chandler.

Larry Ganders provided an update as to how the University (SFI) fared. He thanked the Commission on behalf of President Smith for providing WSU assistance in its efforts and indicated that WSCPR support made a big difference in the outcome of the SFI. The budget specifically mentions the Commission. Ganders pointed out that throughout the debate, WSU continually insisted that the Commission should be funded in the first year of the biennium (SFI funding will not start until the second year—2000). Ganders announced that the current budget passed by the legislature is probably the best budget ever. It provides about $200 million more for the University than in the past. He also observed that this was probably the best session ever for Washington agriculture. In all probability, the entire request will be funded in the second half of the biennium. WSU received ˝ the funding for the advanced technology initiative. This includes precision agriculture and precision forestry. Two major agriculture—and more significantly—research programs were funded. This is extremely unusual. Research seems to be improving its position. Johnson Hall was funded all the way through the process. Advances for cooperative extension were also won.

WSCPR Pest Control Tour. Alan Schreiber reported on the WSCPR Pest Control Tour. He brought attention to the brochure and indicated that with the new mandate, some mid-course adjustments will be made to somewhat shift the Tour’s focus. At least one organic stop will be added and a new group of individuals will be invited. In his review of the current Tour Schedule, Schreiber brought up the possibility of a visit to the Showater Bay Indian Tribe Pesticide Lab. He will look into this in greater depth and make a decision. Schreiber emphasized that all Commissioners are invited to attend any part or all of the Tour. Commissioner registration fees will be covered by WSCPR. The current condition of agriculture in the state, and because the Tour is focused on western Washington causes Schreiber to anticipate that less monetary support (sponsorship) can be expected from commodity groups this year. The registration cost was boosted by $25 to partially compensate for this deficit. He asked Commissioners to inform the ADG office of any individuals who should be on the invitation list.

www.wscpr.org. WSCPR’s website has been improved and expanded. Anyone who hasn’t looked at it recently should "visit".

Commissioners. Pat Boss officially resigned from the Commission. With his resignation, he submitted a nomination for Andrew Jensen, the Washington Potato Commission’s new Research Director. The Forestry, Ag-Chem Industry and Professional Applicator seats are up for nomination at this time. Alan Schreiber asked Heather Hansen, Executive Director of Friends of Farms and Forests, the group, which nominates the Ag-Chem Commissioner, for a nomination. The Forestry seat has been empty for over six months and needs to be filled immediately. Schreiber reported that he is addressing this need. Bill Harlan’s term will terminate at the end of June 1999. He said that the Pesticide Applicators intend to nominate Ron Angel as a replacement. The Vegetable and Seed seat is also up to be filled. This is a more complicated process as approximately 20 organizations are eligible to nominate a member.

Administrative Contract. The ADG Contract for Administrative Services expires on June 30, 1999. The Commission had to make a decision in regard to extending the current administrative services contract.

The Administrator reported that researcher Final Reports will be collected, bound and distributed to Commissioners. Several sets will be kept at the office should interested parties request information. Alan Schreiber circulated the Organic Farming Survey Report that was mentioned during a previous Commission meeting; the results are interesting. Schreiber reported that monies unspent and available for funding projects total about $145,000. He summarized the Commission’s condition: he is happy that the legislation passed, WSCPR books have never been in better order, "we are in good shape".

Chair Tedd Wildman initiated discussion of the new mandate, interpretation thereof and the new "Request for Proposal" that must be formulated. Commissioners proceeded to discuss the proposed changes to the RFP that Alan Schreiber had made and mailed out. They suggested additions and deletions to the text. Schreiber noted these proposed changes and indicated he would make them, then re-circulate the final draft for Commissioner comment before distribution to commodity groups, researchers and entities previously funded by WSCPR (a recipient list of over 250).

Out-of-state proposals. A long and detailed discussion among Commissioners followed. Schreiber noted changes that would be implemented when conclusions were reached. Some words were re-phrased to clarify meaning and some sections revised to accommodate the new mandate. One of the interesting discussions that arose due to IPM work outside the state revolved around the vital importance of geography to IPM; this factor is not as pronounced in pesticide resistance work. IPM studies are much more site specific. John Brown agreed that IPM is local. It was concluded that out-of-state proposals would be required to demonstrate Washington state support and need for the project even more concisely than current projects. Tedd Wildman concluded that the Commission would have to address such issues on a case-by-case basis. Stewart Pfaff pointed out that it is impossible to write one rule or regulation that will cover everything. WSCPR may have to request expert opinions or testimony from recognized IPM authorities from time to time.

Equipment requests. Another lengthy discussion revolved around equipment requests. Historically the Commission has funded projects and equipment associated with projects. If equipment without an attached project request were approved, it would mean that WSCPR would be shifting toward providing infrastructure. Ann George pointed out that it is a matter of writing a proposal right. Equipment that can be used for pest control could be more readily approved than a more generalized piece of equipment. Bob Berger suggested that when the Commission buys a piece of equipment, non-Commission use should require that "rent" be paid when the piece is used for non-Commission projects. Doug Muse and Stewart Pfaff discussed the responsibilities that go with ownership—such as upkeep and insurance. Richard McCartan emphasized that lease options should be encouraged. Ann George said that GLP equipment should considered separately from other research/equipment requests. Glenn Johnson inquired about support for development of a piece of equipment. "Research" could include development of a prototype piece of equipment. Ann George brought up a further complication in this direction stating the example of the Hop Commission’s twiner. A State organization cannot fund equipment development that will be patented.

Bob Berger strongly expressed that if equipment is not directly related to a proposal, the Commission should not fund it. Each Commissioner was asked to express their opinion on this topic. Bill Harlan, Stewart Pfaf, Bryan Sakuma and Doug Muse agreed. Ann George indicated that she would rather err on the side of flexibility and look at the broader term of whether the equipment will benefit future pesticide control in Washington State. Bill Mason was also in favor of maintaining flexibility. Doug Walsh abstained. Herb Teas suggested that researchers be encouraged to "share" Commission-funded equipment. Mike Carrow pointed out that the Commission was trying to get the language too specific. Commissioners should "do their job" and make decisions on a case by case basis. Finally, it was pointed out that this issue actually had already been resolved in the current RFP where it states that equipment requests must appear "within a proposal".

IPM reporting. Doug Walsh brought up the fact that the Government is currently reformatting IPM and how reporting IPM is evaluated. IPM projects funded by the Commission should therefore be in compliance with these newly developed reporting regulations. A form indicating the new criteria by which IPM projects will be evaluated is in the development process. Alan Schreiber asked Doug Walsh to pass this form on to him, as Administrator of the Commission, as soon as he receives it.

Pre-screening/review process. The final date of acceptance for receipt of proposals for them to be considered at the next meeting was discussed. Ann George pointed out that if a screening committee were established from within or outside the Commission, additional time for review would be required. Tedd Wildman announced that he and Alan Schreiber have discussed a pre-review process.

At this time, the Commission recessed to gather its "Working Lunch".

The meeting reconvened at 1:03.

Discussion continued in regard to proposal deadlines and reviews. Some of the options include two-day meetings or expansion of the current schedule to one meeting per month. Another option would be to establish one or two peer review panels that could consist either of all commissioners or a mix of commissioners and "experts" Ann George suggested that a screening committee should make sure "all of the pieces" are present—but should not necessarily make a recommendation. This led to discussion in regard to how decisions on research proposals are made by other award commissions. Very few bodies actually make the decision with the researcher standing in front of them. Commissioners each explained how their specific nominating body funds research. Bill Harlan suggested that in the future, less administrative procedure in the morning would leave more time for proposals. Doug Walsh pointed out that in other commodity commissions, all decision-makers know about the crop. Here, there are multiple crops/commodities that deal with things less familiar to Commissioners. This makes WSCPR procedure unique. Alan Schreiber pointed out that large, involved projects with complex situations would come forth as a result of the new mandate.

WSCPR must also take into consideration that it will start receiving proposals from a new subset of individuals. Some of these proposals may contain proprietary information, and a full audience and minutes may not be desired. Alan Schreiber asked if meetings could be closed for these? The Attorney General, Richard McCartan said, "no". Herb Teas encouraged Schreiber to be "hard-nosed" about the deadline for receipt of proposals. Discussion of various deadlines and proposal presentation formats was discussed in detail. A 30-day deadline was favored with presentations as per normal until future notice. Ann George suggested that a checklist be attached to each proposal to indicate whether essential elements are present, ie: matching funds, commodity group support, appropriate budget, etc. It was decided that under any circumstance, Commissioners should receive proposals, with or without reviewer comments, at least 7 days prior to any regularly scheduled meeting. Other specifications can be flexible to adapt on a case by case situation.

The Commission next debated the composition of a review panel: how many reviewers and who these individuals could be. Ann George asked what the Commission would expect from reviewers. Should GLP projects, which have an established protocol, even be entered into this process? John Brown said he would welcome the opportunity to work with a Commissioner in the review process. Doug Muse pointed out that he enjoys the "passion" of the presenter and doesn’t want to lose this by putting a review panel in place. Especially IPM work may look (on paper) very bad and unsophisticated, but personal explanation could clarify and greatly enhance a project. Alan Schreiber provided another alternative. WSCPR could have a roster of 50-60 reviewers available. Depending on the topic, the Administrator would contact appropriate reviewers to determine the scientific credibility and feasibility of each project. Individual reviewers would remain anonymous, but their opinions would be presented along with the proposal. Herb Teas suggested that the Commissioner closest to the crop/commodity involved should be included as a reviewer of the proposal. Stewart Pfaff suggested that the present process remain until Commissioners see it doesn’t work. Alan Schreiber pointed out that there may be need for more input on some—not most—project proposals. Bob Berger summarized the discussion by observing that the debate revolved around trying to solve a problem that can’t yet clearly be defined. Alan Schreiber asked for Commissioner consensus that the Administrator is allowed to distribute proposals for a second, expert opinion if he deems this necessary. He agreed to provide a draft of procedure for processing proposals and fax it to Commissioners for a fax vote. The agreed-upon process would serve on an as-needed and trial basis. Schreiber will report on his progress at the next WSCPR meeting. Herb Teas requested that Commissioners receive notebooks with proposals 7 days prior to meeting. June 21 was set as the deadline for the July 7 meeting. All future proposal deadlines will be set for 30 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.

Request: $2980

Match: $3,000 in cash

Doug Walsh, WSU-Prosser, presented the proposal. Snap peas are rejected by processors at low damage levels. Therefore, the industry is worried about the potential loss of dimethoate that is now being used to control ahpids and flower thrips. The proposed project will test spinosad as an alternative reduced risk control for these pests. Funds would be used to compensate a research assistant and cover travel costs. An in-cash contribution of $3,000 will be provided by Dow AgroSciences.

Ann George asked if this research is potentially be useful for other crops. Doug Walsh responded that it could be valuable to other legume crops.

Ann George moved to approve the proposal in the requested amount of $2,980.

Herb Teas seconded the Motion.

Ann George reported on a recent IR-4 meeting during which blanket approvals of particular compounds may be initiated. Spinosad is slated as the first of those to be considered. EPA agreed to consider this blanket approval because even if all crops in the US were treated with Spinosad—there would be no threat to the risk cup. Abound is next in line for consideration. EPA intends to review others at a rapid rate. Soon, there will be a plethora of new products that can be approved with only efficacy studies. Therefore, if spinosad receives the blanket-ok, the previous proposal could result in a registration after only 2 years.

Request: $8,560

Match: $12,000

Doug Walsh, WSU-Prosser, presented the proposal. The project would test spinosad as an alternative reduced-risk control for leafroller pests of cherries. It would also evaluate spinosad rate and carrier volume effect on control of cherry fruit fly.

Lacking a letter of support from the industry and due to the fact that the request is post-factum (research has already been conducted), Alan Schreiber pointed out that this proposal is not in accordance with Commission standards. Herb Teas confirmed that the industry needs the compounds, but has not been involved in the testing.

Doug Muse moved that this application be denied.

Bob Berger seconded the Motion.

Both Doug Muse and Bob Berger withdrew their motions. No funding was approved.

Doug Walsh presented requests for several pieces of equipment. The primary request was for an electrostatic sprayer. He also requested support to purchase two backpack sprayers and a truck to transport heavy pesticide application equipment.

Alan Schreiber announced that this proposal is not in adherence to WSCPR guidelines. No commodity group support exists and the request is not being submitted within the context of a proposal. A researcher who has never conducted WSCPR work before would be a recipient to some of the requested equipment. Finally, the third request, evaluating plant nutrients may not fall within the current WSCPR mandate.

Ann George asked Walsh if he would use the duster-misters in IR-4 work this year? Bob Berger corrected a mathematical error in the proposal (total should be $50,000). Ann George said she would like to consider items one at a time and encouraged Dr Davenport, under the new mandate, to submit a new proposal to test for plant nutrients. Stewart Pfaff suggested that the discussion be tabled.

Doug Walsh presented the request on behalf of Keith Pike. He pointed out that an insectary is valuable in that it benefits a researcher to have a known number of pests on plants. The requested insectary equipment would provide these. Alan Schreiber explained that this proposal is in line with Commission guidelines. Stewart Pfaff asked if the insectary could be used in the study of aphids on peas and lentils. The answer was yes. Tedd Wildman announced that the allotted time for one proposal had lapsed and tabled the presentation.

John Brown deferred his presentation of proposal 99PN037: Temporary support for a WSU Homoptera Biological Control Specialist.

John Stark, WSU-Puyallup, presented the project. He explained that the cabbage maggot is a serious problem on fresh vegetables and on vegetables grown for seed. Severe economic loss results if infestations are not controlled. The cabbage maggot has developed resistance to both chlorinated hydrocarbon and organophosphate insecticides. The purpose of the project is to evaluate several new insecticides as potential controls for cabbage maggot control in the future. Application techniques will also be evaluated.

Alan Schreiber asked when this problem would be solved? Stark responded that he would hopefully approach solution this year. He started the project before FQPA and then realized that some of the products used won’t be available in the future. During his second year of experimentation, there wasn’t enough pest pressure. This year, trials will be conducted in alternate sites.

Ann George moved to approve the proposal in the amount of $3,600.

Herb Teas seconded the Motion.

John Stark, WSU-Puyallup, presented the proposal. He explained that in the past, the seed pod weevil was controlled with phosdrin—which is no longer available. A fumigant or a systemic is necessary to control the weevil. Bees posed another problem—so phosdrin had to be applied at night. Thiodan, which is bee-safe, came after phosdrin. Control failures occurred with Thiodan and the future for the control is bleak. Dave Bragg has had great results with Goucho and Brigade. Lazer (Baythroid II) and Warrior have also shown efficacy in canola. John Stark would like to do some of the same trials in seed cabbage and hopefully get similar results for seedpod weevil control

Herb Teas moved to approve the request in the amount requested.

Bob Berger/Stewart Pfaff simultaneously seconded the Motion.

Alan Schreiber announced that approval was pending upon receipt of a letter of support from the industry.

John Stump, Beekeeper and Bob Schell, President of Washington Beekeepers Association represented the industry. Jamie Strange, Walter Sheppard’s research assistant presented the proposal.

There is one pesticide available for the control of Varroa mite on honey bees. Due to overuse, the European Varroa has developed resistance to this control. The project is designed to establish treatment thresholds for the use of Apistan and coumaphos—both treatments have shown control of the pest and will serve to protect the public, the beekeeping industry and growers who depend upon honeybee pollination.

Doug Muse asked if the user group could provide a larger match. He explained that the 10-15% provided by the commodity is not palatable to the Commission. Bob Schell, President of the Beekeepers, explained that honey prices are down. Apple growers are tearing out trees, lots of apple pollination contracts were not renewed this year. Funding is very short.

Alan Schreiber suggested that the Commission accept this plea of leniency in regard to the current state of the industry. He also pointed out that WSCPR has funded four projects for this researcher and that the WA Mint industry is "extremely upset" with the quality or quantity of his work. The researcher would not release data to the industry until his grad student’s thesis was completed. John Brown addressed these topics by outlining tracheal mite logistics. He explained that the individual counting erred and counted one sample twice. He explained that IP Callison may be upset because experimental results show that mint does not work as a control. He pointed out that graduate students should not need to provide data until it is all collected.

Bob Berger moved to approve the proposal in the amount requested.

Bill Harland seconded the Motion.

John Brown, WSU presented the proposal to acquire funding three months earlier than the legislature approved in order to take advantage of a whole growing season. He explained that WSU is not convinced that biological control is an answer in itself. It is only a part of an IPM project. WSU has the insectary—but for several years, has not had an entomololgist to "man" the station. When hired, this specialist will concentrate on homoptera pests and will not be specifically responsible for any one crop

Tedd Wildman said he hoped that as WSCPR defines its role under the new mandate that it can begin to fund things such as "infrastructure". Bob Berger voiced concern that the legislature decided NOT to fund the position until 2000, so if the Commission used money it had been granted to fund something the legislature elected NOT to fund, it may endanger its position.

John Brown withdrew his proposal.

Doug Walsh’s timed-out proposal 99PN035 requesting pesticide application and transport equipment was revisited. Walsh announced that if there was no support for this request in its present format, he would return to his colleagues for a re-draft. Alan Schreiber suggested that only researchers who have had projects with WSCPR apply for equipment funding. Herb Teas asked how adaptable the equipment requests are to various insects. The proposal failed for lack of a Motion.

The Commission moved on to discuss 99PN036, funding of insectary equipment at WSU-Prosser. Because insectary rearing of target pests has been and is being used in wheat and barley projects endorsed or supported by WSCPR and conducted by Keith Pike, Commissioners determined that this request for equipment is in accordance with WSCPR requirements.

Ann George moved to approve 99PN036 in the amount of $16,284 as an addendum to aphid and barley proposals previously funded by WSCPR.

Bryan Sakuma seconded the Motion.

Administrative Contract. The Agriculture Development Group, Inc. 6-month administrative contract expires June 30, 1999. All future contracts will be for 12 months, covering one full fiscal year. Tedd Wildman explained that actual numbers for the contract can only be estimated because it is unclear at the present what the new mandate will bring. He proposed amending the present administrative fee to $100,000.

A spreadsheet of administrative expenditures was distributed. Rounding actual costs. Ann George concluded that from $11,500 of the previous year, an increase to $13,000 should be allotted to cover administrative expenditures not including extraordinary costs such as the Washington Pest Control Tour.

Herb Teas moved to accept proposed budget for the administrative fee and expenditures.

Ann George seconded the Motion.

Bill Harlan moved to approve Alan Schreiber’s contract with the WSCPR.

Herb Teas seconded the Motion.

Alan Schreiber invited all Commissioners to the ADG Farming Party on June 17.

The meeting adjourned at 3:10 pm.

• Add Glenn Johnson to "interested parties list"
• Send a letter to the vegetable seed growers to nominate a new Commissioner

• Send a letter to 3 professional applicator groups and to forestry industry to nominate a Commissioner
• Bring approved Proposal Protocol Procedure to July 7 meeting

• Replace Wyatt Cone with "David James" for RFP and Newsletter
• Add a phrase into the WSCPR Contract that states "any innovation must enter public domaine"
• Bring copies of legislature "thanks letters" to July 7 meeting.
• Bring copies of signed WSCPR-Schreiber and WSCPR-WSU contracts to July 7 meeting

GET A HARD COPY OF PROJECT STATUS REPORTS

Definitely a proposal from university—not the commodity group. Does not really have matching funds. Commodity funds were not submitted for this project. They would benefit from this research—but have nothing to do with commodity. Would benefit Keith Pike and related researchers. Alan encouraged them to "go to bat" for the project.

Return to WSCPR