Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Welcome and Introductions Outgoing chair Doug Walsh opened the meeting at 10:30 a.m. with a welcome and self introductions. It was confirmed that WERA-069s new charter has been approved through 2010. Tom Holtzer encouraged all representatives to enter their contact information in the National Information Management System (NIMS) database to make sure receipt of all relevant postings. Western IPM Center Report Rick Melnicoe gave a general report on the history and current operations of the Western IPM Center (WIPMC). His presentation traced the Centers transition from an organization of individual states and territories to one focused on multi-state and multi-disciplinary collaborations, including Information Networks, Workgroups, and a variety of special projects. He emphasized the large degree of stakeholder involvement in the Center and explained that many diverse groups including the advisory and steering committees, commodity groups, and WERA-069 all have input into priority setting. Rick recapped the recent solicitation for input on western states priorities, wherein the WIPMC stated that priorities expressed would be reflected in the coming years RFAs/RFPs, saying that the response rate was very high and enthusiastic. Peter Ellsworth expressed some confusion in the melding of missions reflected in that input solicitation, saying it was a little unclear as to whether these were large or small projects, research or extension. In fact, the information received will be used to help formulate all types of RFAs/RFPs in the coming year. Electronic copies Ricks handouts (the WIPMC 2005 Annual Report, the Centers Mid-Term Report, and the Centers January 2006 newsletter) are linked to these minutes. Rick explained that input received would be utilized for formulating RIPM Frank Zalom then gave a presentation on the WIPMC Regional IPM Grants program (formerly chaired by Nick Toscana) he has chaired for the past two years. His slide show detailed the timeline of the most recent proposal cycle beginning with the RFA issuance in October 2005. One of the key differences in the new grants program is the addition of a relevancy review. Relevancy and technical merit are assessed separately by two different panels. Applicants who neglect to submit the required 3-page relevancy statement or submit a poorly articulated will not be funded. Criteria for evaluation of both the relevancy and the technical elements were included in the RFA, yet a number of submittals failed to address the relevancy criteria. Grants funded in 2005 are listed in the WIPMC 2005 Annual Report and those that were recommended by WIPMC to CSREES for 2006 funding are shown on the slide show. In an ensuing discussion on the relevancy review component, Frank explained that the requirement for relevancy is consistent in all regions, but each region can choose exactly how to implement the relevancy component. He acknowledged that the WIPMCs interpretation of the relevancy criteria is stringent. Peter Ellsworth suggested adding a page or statement of some sort on the WIPMC website connected to the Funding Opportunities link that helps applicants be successful. Rick Melnicoe moderated a wrap-up discussion on the WIPMC. Revisiting the recent input received for upcoming RFAs/RFPs, he explained that the input would be used by WIPMC for its RIPM grants as well as shared with RAMP and PMAP to assist them in prioritizing regional priorities in those programs grant processes. He indicated that efforts are underway to synchronize the timing of the RIPM and RAMP grants. Rick also reported on recent interactions between WIPMC and the National IPM Center and recent meetings with WIPMCs Advisory Committee and Steering Committee. A WIPMC Strategic Plan is underway with the Steering Committee as of last week. The Steering Committee has gone on record as believing that the State Information Networks are an extremely important component of the Western Regions overall effectiveness. This has been a contentious line item but the Steering Committee has approved continuing to fund them and in fact increasing funding for them. The Steering Committee is also in favor of multi-year funding for these Networks, however since the regional centers are entering their 4th and final year of federal funding, multi-year subcontracts cannot be offered at this time. Should the WIPMC be successful in the next round of multi-year federal funding, they will pursue extending state Information Network grants to multi-year. WIPMCs ability to adequately represent the needs of the Pacific Island Territories was acknowledged as problematic; WIPMC administration is actively seeking solutions for this situation. Regarding the federal funding and whether it will stay in 406 or go to NRI, Rick pointed out that one of the thorniest issues is that of the administrative cost cap and that this is in fact a separate issue. While we are all more comfortable with the current 406 line-item situation, its status as such will continue to be threatened. The shift to NRI could be relatively seamless if the administrative cost cap were held. Finally, despite the arguments for the Western Region needing more than 25% of the overall federal Regional Center funding due to geography and diversity, the latest word on the national level is that the funding shall remain equal for the four regions. The group broke for lunch at 12:10 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Plans for the Future Chair Doug Walsh opened an informal discussion on WERA-069s plans for the future by posing the question How can we get more researchers involved in WERA-069? As a counterpoint, some of the longer-term members indicated that things were not necessarily better when more researchers were involved. Researchers, according to some members, did not contribute much to the meetings. It was asserted that researchers are only focused on grant acquisition and the specific topic(s) of their research. Some of the extension people were fairly negative about working to recruit researchers, while others pointed out that the charter for WERA-069 requires it. Discussion ensued on whether and how to bring researchers to the meeting. Tom Holtzer suggested that each WERA-069 meeting have a theme that would be attractive to researchers (e.g., vegetable crops next year in Arizona) and that the (extension) IPM Coordinator come routinely and that the second person who comes from each state be a specific researcher interested in that topic. Frank Zalom speculated that the proximity of researchers sharing a common discipline would foster the formation of inter-state workgroups. It was generally acknowledged that the only way to attract researchers is to offer them ways to pursue or influence research funding. Peter Ellsworth, incoming WERA-069 chair, expressed his intent to integrate ag tours into next years meeting in an effort to generate researcher interest. Sue Blodgett suggested that if we want researchers to attend, we should schedule the WERA-069 meeting contiguous to a research-specific meeting such as the regional entomology or plant pathology or weed science societies meetings. Sally ONeal Coates suggested that a time be set aside within the agenda for discussion of opportunities for intra-state research funding collaboration; by making this visible in the agenda, it would be making a statement that this group is committed to collaborating on research funding. Several people noted that we cant do all of the above: ag tours, themed meeting, adding a collaborative research discussion, and tagging it onto a research-oriented society meeting. After Peter Ellsworths 2007 tenure as chair, Frank Zalom agreed to serve as 2008 WERA-069 chair. He will likely set up a themed meeting and ag tour in Napa Valley, the Monterey Bay area, or elsewhere in California. Diane Alston will serve as 2009 chair. Kitty Cardwell and Marty Draper introduced themselves as guests from (CSREES). Kitty indicated further strengthening of the PIPE program and more collaboration with the Regional IPM Centers. Marty, a Plant Pathologist, will be moving from South Dakota State University to his new position with CSREES in Washington, DC in July 2006. Outgoing chair Doug Walsh adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.

State reports: Ed Bechinski gave a report for Idaho. An IPM Adoption Practices Survey is currently underway in commercial potato production. It went out in late 2005; results are still coming in and have yet to be tabulated and analyzed. The survey data will update 1998 and 1992 surveys. Ed has been experimenting with delivering extension training via distance education methodologies including video cam and videostream. So far, this has been used in 8 different counties. The University of Idaho welcomes Kelly Tindall as a post-doc over the next 2 years. She is working with Ed on sugarbeet and corn extension materials. Ed recognized Ronda Hirnyck as a key collaborator of his in Idaho. Jay Moore gave a report for Alaska. Late blight has been an emerging concern in Alaska potatoes in the Mat-Su (Matanuska-Susitna) and Fairbanks regions; this was a large problem in 2005 and is being monitored in 2006. Imported tomato starts may be a source. Invasive plants have been an area of focus in 2005; technicians surveyed several previously unsurveyed areas and a great deal of extension education took place on this topic, including the compilation of an extensive Invasive Plants of Alaska book. Not surprisingly, areas with high tourist traffic seem to have the greatest problem with invasive plant species. Doug Walsh gave a report for Washington, recognizing Catherine Daniels (information dissemination) and Carrie Foss (urban IPM) as key collaborators. Taking critical needs from the Western Rangeland Cattle PMSP workshop last summer, Dougs group applied for and received a $385,000 3-year grant from FCIC RMA to investigate reduced-risk internal and external pest management practices. A recent grape survey showed that use of organophosphates has dropped 95% in wine grapes and 50% in juice grapes since pest management practices were last surveyed in grapes in the mid 1990s. He recognized Carrie Fosss IPM Landscape and Turf Certification program and her recent funding and construction of a teaching building for structural pest management. Linda Herbst mentioned Carries spearheading of a multi-state workgroup for urban IPM that has been funded by WIPMC. Ned Tisserat, reminding the group that he has been in Colorado for only a year, gave that states report. Like Doug Walsh, he expressed frustration that the 3d monies tend to be absorbed by the universities for salaries, leaving little for program development and expansion. Within Colorado, Ned has resurrected a mini-grants program. He expressed his constituents concern about invasion by emerald ash borer; this pests impact on Colorados urban areas could be devastating. Plans to put a proactive strategy together are in their infancy. Diane Alston reported on Utah. She told the group about two recent tenure-track university hires: Extension Plant Pathologist Kent Evans and Extension Entomologist Erin Hodgson. With the erosion in 3d funds practical availability, Utah has sought additional partners such as SARE to support its IPM efforts. A search is currently underway for a Masters-level IPM Project Leader. USU has recently expanded its website and brought together numerous disciplines on the website. Bob Schlub Reported on Guam. The University of Guam has been focusing on establishing a plant diagnostic clinic. Disease and insect identification has heretofore been on an incident-by-incident basis without cohesive territory-wide organization. Guam also needs to find other funding sources to support IPM. They have turned, for example, to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to fund the purchase of biosecurity cabinets. Arnold Hara gave the Hawaii report. In his 2-year tenure as IPM Coordinator, a primary focus has been administration of a mini-grants program. As with Alaska, invasive species is a big problemplant, insect, animal, everything. The IPM Program sponsors an annual conference where information is shared. Arnold would like to see Hawaii work more closely with the WIPMC, would like to see Hawaii involved in more PMSPs, and would like to work more closely with the Pacific Islands. Due to Al Fourniers weather-delayed travel itinerary, Peter Ellsworth gave the report on Arizona. They are convening their first pest management conference in June 2006. They have been reworking a mini-grants program to align it more closely with regional priorities. The Cross-commodity Research and Outreach Program (CROP) continues to be active, working to identify and develop management strategies for pests of concern to multiple crops. A Mediterranean whitefly pest first detected by CROP about 18 months ago is now appearing in greenhouses in several states and is being aggressively studied. Whiteflies in general are a significant pest in Arizona; the IPM group is currently revising their 1996 management recommendations for these pests. Pete Goodell of UC Cooperative Extension, along with Milt McGiffen and Frank Zalom of UC Riverside and UC Davis, respectively, gave the California report. IPM is expanding in crops including cotton (where a movement toward sustainability is underway). Survey results on almond pest management practices have been released and results of a survey on cotton will be out soon. California has secured a grant from NRCS to develop pest management guidelines in a fashion similar to the Idaho One Plan and has also worked with NRCS to conduct training. They are in the process of developing a thorough strategic plan with the use of an outside consultant. They also administer a mini-grant program for county-based demonstration projects. Frank reported that due to faculty and enrollment declines, the Davis campus terminated enrollment for their IPM Masters program. However, a sustainable ag Bachelors program is under development. Milt mentioned the possible re-formation of a desert ag workgroup spearheaded by California.

Wee L. Yee1 and Diane G. Alston. 2005. Effects of spinosad, spinosad bait, and chloronicotinyl insecticides on mortality and control of adult and larval western cherry fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 99:1722-1732 Ma, Zhanshan and Edward J. Bechinski. 2005. A survival-analysis-based simulation model for Russian wheat aphid population dynamics. Ecological Modeling. 216: 323-332 William T. Lanier, Michael J. Brewer, Frank B. Peairs, Gary L. Hein, Howard F. Schwartz, John B. Campbell, and Sue Blodgett. 2005. Development and Assessment of an On-Line High Plains Integrated Pest Management Guide for a Regional Audience. American Entomologist, Spring 2006. pp. 30-35 Blodgett, S.L., A.W. Lenssen, and S.D. Cash, 2005. Black grass bug Hemiptera:Miridae) damage to intermediate wheatgrass forage quality. J. Entomol. Sci. 41: 92-94. Thomas, J.N., C. Daniels. 2005. The Pesticide Notification Network: An E-Source for Agriculture. J. Extension. 42:6 Ellsworth, P.C., J.C. Palumbo, A. Fournier, Y.Carrière, and C. Ellers-Kirk. 2005. Novel measurement of group adoption of IPM in diverse cropping communities. The 2005 ESA Annual Meeting and Exhibition. December 15-18, 2005, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Naranjo, S.E. and P.C. Ellsworth. 2005. Mortality dynamics and population regulation in Bemisia tabaci. Entomol. Exp. Applicata. 116: 93-108. Goodell, P.B. and K. Lynn-Patterson. 2005. Managing Lygus in an ecological context. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences. New Orleans, LA. pp 1694-1701. Arcinas, A., B.S. Sipes, A.H. Hara, and M.M.C. Tsang. 2005. Effect of conditioning treatments on the survival of Radopholus similis at high temperatures. Journal of Nematology 37: (3): 250-253. Hara, A.H. 2005. Disinfestation treatments for cut flowers and potted ornamentals. In Proceedings, 2004 Hawaii Floriculture Conference, Kahului, HI, 2004. K.W. Leonhardt and P. Nakao, Eds. University of Hawaii at Manoa, CTAHR, CTAHR Proceedings April 2005 P-04/05, pp. 21-24. (Cold, Heat, Chemical, Irradiation, Systems Approach) Hara, A.H. and C.M. Jacobsen. 2005. Hot water immersion for surface disinfestations of Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 98(2): 284-288. Anderson, W., C. Brummer, S. Cianzio, T. Holtzer, R. Streiffer, J.Wolt, G.Zdorkowski. 2005. Public Research in a Corporate World: A Role-Playing Ethics Case Study. Bioethics Institute. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/BioethicsInstitute/Public%20Research%20in%20a%20Corporate%20World%20v3.doc Walsh, D.B. & G. Grove. 2005. Repellency and repulsiveness of fungicides, petroleum spray oils, and spray adjuvants to two-spotted spider mites Tetranychus urticae Koch. Plant Health Progress. Leal W. S., A. L. Parra-Pedrazzoli1, K.-E. Kaissling, T. I. Morgan1, F. G. Zalom, D. J. Pesak, E. A. Dundulis, C. S. Burks, and B. S. Higbee. 2005. Unusual pheromone chemistry in the navel orangeworm: novel sex attractants and a behavioral antagonist. Naturwissenschaften 92:101-150 Van Steenwyk, R.A. and F.G. Zalom. 2005. Food Quality Protection Act launches search for pest management alternatives. Calif. Agric. 59:7