back to NEREAP home page

Attendees:

John Ayers, Lorraine Berkett, John Butler, Richard Casagrande, Rakesh Chandran, Bill Coli, Paul Curtis, Jim Dill, Mike Fitzner, Marion Gold, Jennifer Grant, George Hamilton, Dave Handley, Zane Helsel, Bill Hoffman, Rob Koethe, Ana Legrand, Fred Magdoff, Betty Marose, Audrey Moore, Ed Rajotte, Sandy Sardanelli, Andrea Szylvian, Marc Teffeau, Jim VanKirk, Joanne Whalen

State Reports:

Connecticut – Ana Legrand:

Personnel: Dr Ana Legrand became the new IPM* program coordinator.

New Programs and Issues:

• Publication of the Integrated Pest Management Handbook for Herbaceous Perennials edited by Leanne Pundt,at the University of Connecticut and Tina Smith at the Univ. of Massachusetts
• IPM team obtained funds that will support educational efforts in turf IPM for homehowners.
• Creation of an IPM curriculum kit for 7th and 8th grades. Izzy the Preying Mantis (IPM) is the name of the mascot for the kit.
• Initiation of the beetle farmer program for biological control of invasive plants.
• Educational needs assessment of non-English speaking migrant and seasonal workers

Outreach and Stakeholder Communication:

The website continues to be an important communication tool. As such, it requires additional funding sources to keep current and of high quality. The IPM team is working on establishing a stakeholder group to foster collaborative efforts within the state including state legislators.

Delaware – Joanne Whalen

Budget Update:

State funding is stable at this point. The funding cut in 2002 has been rescinded in 2003.

Personnel: Dr. Jan Seitz is the new Extension Director. Jay Windsor, who worked in ornamental IPM, has retired.

New Programs: Major areas of emphasis:

• Fly management in dairy using alternative management tools.
• Continued focus on Colorado potato bug resistance management, wireworm management, and late blight forecasting.
• Watermelon – management of rye strip to reduce early spider mite infestations and research on chemigation to reduce foliar sprays.
• The new Pepper Crop Management program focuses on irrigation and IPM
• Dean Foods, a new processor in Delaware, is creating new opportunities for 8 producers in the state.
• Communication with Legislators: The new extension director has made this a priority.

Multistate Efforts:

Maryland and Delaware have created a team to work on Pepper IPM

The Mid-Atlantic Crop Management School is an on-going effort between Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia.

Other Issues:

How to handle the Ornamental Program in light of major retirements

Make decisions about the Fly Management on Dairy Farms Program once it is complete in 2004.

Maine- Jim Dill:

Budget:

Maine IPM is not heavily reliant on state funding, so state cuts have had a minimal effect. Existing money is targeted for school and home IPM programs. A tax or user fee on pesticides to help fund IPM programs went through the Maine legislature but was vetoed by the governor. They now need to look for other funding sources.

New Programs and Issues:

• Severe late blight in potatoes is causing huge losses in storage and a high inoculum pressure for the coming season.
• The IPM program is working in conjunction with the Maine Department of Agriculture on school IPM.
• An IPM advisory council to the state legislature has been formed and met last year for the first time to create an open channel for communication and encourage additional funding of IPM programs.
• The Pro-New England website serves as a communications link on pesticide issues for 6 New England states.

Maryland – Sandy Sardanelli:

Budget: Maryland state agencies are currently in a budget and hiring freeze, but since the IPM program relies heavily on grant money, its efforts are continuing with little disruption, but is short on personnel especially in traditional agriculture programs.

New Programs and Issues:

• IPM areas in Maryland include green industries, urban, school, structural, and traditional agriculture.
• New projects include organic farming, GMO education, invasive species, web-based information transfer, project reporting initiatives, Department of Agriculture partnerships, stakeholder involvement, and new focus teams.
• An IPM website facelift is planned for completion by 2004 in coordination with the Entomology Department.
• Stanton Gill is the contact for the new Greenhouse IPM Manual for Schools produced by the Maryland Greenhouse IPM Team
• The Home and Garden Information Center, headed by Mary Kay Malinoski, was slated for cuts, but stakeholders overwhelmingly responded on their behalf resulting in reduced funding but not total withdrawal.

Massachusetts – Bill Coli:

Budget: Funding from the state is minimal and no change is envisioned for this year. There is an effort underway to acquire dedicated state funding to support IPM through a tax on homeowner pesticide and fertilizer sales to create a center for non-toxic pest management, but this has not passed through the legislature yet and its success is questionable in a difficult budget climate.

Personnel: Bill Coli is partially retired. Ron Prokopy is due to retire in 2005. Dave Ferro retired in December 2003

New Programs and Issues:

• Tina Smith has completed a survey of IPM practice adoption in the greenhouse industry. Results have been summarized, but further analysis has yet to be completed.
• Adjustments in the cranberry industry as a result of water management regulations are causing some acreage to go out of production which causes some changes in the pest complex. Work is ongoing using water (e.g. flooding) as a pest management tool.
• In apples, Massachusetts is working on a reduced risk IPM systems modeled after the work of Peter Shearer in New Jersey.
• Ron Prokopy continues to refine his work on plum curculio traps and the “attract and kill” apple maggot trap with is nearing commercialization.
• Craig Hollingsworth completed another successful year of implementation with the New England Pest Management Association (NEPMA) of the NEPMA IPM Registry. The Registry, which has both educational and performance criteria, has proven very popular within the structural pest management industry.
• IPM Evaluation project – The Coordinator was funded by USDA to undertake a national effort to encourage more states to measure extent of adoption of IPM and relate such to changes in risk. This activity is consistent with national IPM goals set forth in the IPM Roadmap, and is needed to justify continued federal support for IPM research and extension on the part of OMB, GAO and the Congress.
• A newly constructed pesticide storage and mixing facility is being used for workshops co-sponsored by NRCS. Growers may apply for EQIP funding for such improvements.
• The vegetable team has been working to develop a new project emphasis on ethnic vegetable crops since Massachusetts has seen dramatic growth in numbers of immigrants with varying dietary preferences. Indicators show potential for marketing crops that are not currently heavily grown however, little is known about the pests that attack these crops, and many have few or no labeled materials available.
• Crop Profiles/ PMSP’s – IPM staff continue to collaborate with pesticide Education Team and others to conduct regional surveys and other work leading to the development of several crop profiles and PMSP’s.

New Hampshire – Alan Eaton: no report

New Jersey – George Hamilton:

Budget: Rutgers Cooperative Extension (RCE) continues to support the IPM programs through state funding. A 5.4% cut in 2004 will need to be made up either through user fees or grants. New Jersey is currently responding to the 10% cut in federal funding for 2004.

New Programs and Issues:

• Programs are currently being maintained for blueberries, field crops, greenhouse, nursery crops, tree fruit, and vegetables.
• Work on a strategic plan began in November 2003.
• By June 2004, use of IPM in all New Jersey schools becomes mandatory requiring 3 steps: a model policy, a model plan, and targeted training. Using parts of existing programs from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, the model policy is developed and distributed, the model plan is in development, and RCE is being asked to create the training materials for licensing IPM providers.
• In response to the multitude of invasive species entering NJ, the RCE IPM program will receive funding via the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (APHIS CAPS).

New York – Jennifer Grant:

Budget: State funding is holding steady and with Albany seeing indicators that the economy is improving, threatened cuts may be rescinded.

Personnel:

Curt Petzoldt is the official NEREAP representative replacing Mike Hoffmann and Julie Stavisky is a new hire working in the Livestock and Field Crops Program. Claudia Coen began work this year developing IPM curriculum for schools.

New Programs and Issues:

• TAG (Tactical Agricultural teams) turn farm fields into open classrooms for farmers, scouts and consultants where participants learn how to identify pest and crop problems, use thresholds, and better understand effects of healthy soils and planting practices.
• The turf program has reduced pesticide use by 46% during the 2 years of research on the Bethpage Green golf course in NY.
• Three IPM guidelines are now online with the goal to have all guidelines available through the web in the future.
• The IPM program is working with the Natural Resource Conservation Service on IPM training for growers and scouts and is helping to develop criteria to define IPM adoption.
• TracApple is an easy to use software program that apple growers can use to record their yearly spray history and automatically generate required processor spray reporting forms. The program is being offered to apple growers at no charge. The department has also designed a poster to help promote IPM apples in the market.
• The ornamentals program is working on writing best management practices currently with nurseries.
• Work is on going with bio-control of pests in pastures and beetle barriers in poultry houses.
• An attempt to define organic land care is controversial, but important and will continue.
• More information on activities is available through the NY IPM annual report

Pennsylvania – Ed Rajotte:

Personnel: The Pennsylvania IPM program added two more people for the greenhouse initiative

New Programs and Issues:

• A new school IPM manual,
• Hi resolution pest predictions based on climate data,
• 15 fact sheets written in Spanish,
• An IMAX film on insects,
• Service Learning Approach involving public school students learning and practicing IPM techniques,
• A greenhouse IPM manual,
• Quarterly newsletter,
• Much more is available in the 2004 Report of Progress.

Rhode Island – Marion Gold:

• Rhode Island IPM is working on a large project involving best management practices especially targeting homeowner use of pesticides to see how behavioral changes affect water quality. The program uses demonstration sites (4 master gardener home landscapes), workshops, and evaluation.
• Popular media is utilized to spread the IPM message specifically through airing a weekly television show every Saturday morning at 9am,and with articles in 3 newspapers.
• A pilot program has been launched in February 2004 for green industries to certify practitioners in Healthy Landscapes. See the site at: http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/tips/1.html

Vermont – Lorraine Berkett:

Personnel: Unfortunately there are no additions to the Vermont IPM staff and the existing staff are unable to meet the extension and applied research needs of growers.

New Programs and Issues:

Educating legislators is a top priority accomplished through annual farm tours, meeting with growers, sending apples to legislators during harvest along with IPM promotional material, and a University of Vermont Day at the State House.

Multistate efforts include:

• The New England Production guides;
• New England agricultural service providers and certified crop advisor training;
• New England, New York, and Canadian Apple IPM Workshop;
• GO-IPM – the greenhouse and ornamentals IPM working group associated with the ;
• The Tri-state Greenhouse IPM Advisory Group; and School IPM
  

West Virginia – Rakesh Chandran:

Personnel: Jennifer Ours Williams is the new Director of Ag and Natural Resources replacing Ken Martin.

Programs and Issues:

• IPM mini-grants administered by the IPM program funded four proposals: testing stink bug traps in tree fruit, using meat goat for brush management in pasture, pest management in home gardening, and developing a prototype for weed identification.
• Confirmed and characterized an herbicide resistant biotype of Johnson grass, a major weed in corn in West Virginia and the mid-Atlantic region.
• Co-authored the weed management sections of the Pest Management Guide for Field Crops for the Mid-Atlantic States and Tree Fruit Spray Bulletin Guide for the Mid-Atlantic States.
• Offered a course “Principles of Weed Control” at the University of West Virginia
• Offered numerous lectures and workshops related to integrated weed management in a wide array of crops.
• Maintain a weed identification display garden used as a teaching tool.
• Received a grant from USDA Forest Service for identifying outreach strategies for engaging private forest landowners in invasive plant management.
• Also received 3 year HATCH funding for “Use of Poultry Litter Composts for Turfgrass Weed Management”
• Conduct research into the use of vinegar for weed control in potato and blueberry.

EPA Updates

Region I - Rob Koethe

• Funding for EPA is bleak leaving the pesticide safety program still unsure and in flux. All three FQPA* coordinators are now in communication with state IPM coordinators.
• Goals for the Sustainable Ag Initiative are stated in EPA’s 5 year Strategic Plan (2003-2008) and include, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, which pertains specifically to pesticides, human health, and water issues. Measurable environmental results is a principal theme of the EPA Strategic Plan and an explicit Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) goal is to reduce pesticide residues on food eaten by children by 30% by 2008.
  

EPA Region I - Andrea Szylvian

• Strategic Ag Initiative Grants awarded in FY2003:

  1. Reducing the Risks Associated with Herbicides: Growing Field and Sweet Corn in New England granted to the University of Connecticut to demonstrate effectiveness of a non-registered, reduced risk herbicide (mesothione) $52,000.

  2. Grower Implementation of Reduced Risk Technology through Improved Pest Identification and Knowledge of Pesticide Products: New England Vegetable and Berry Growers Association is revising the New England Vegetable Management Guide and also creating a photo identification guide and both products will be available on their website. They are also doing a survey of New England growers to document changes in pest management as a result of the guides. $51,637

• Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) grant award for FY2003:

  1. Management of the European Fire Ant in Eastern Maine granted to the University of Maine to develop least toxic management strategies that maximize natural mortality. $40,000

• The new RFA is coming out in May or June.
• A lawn care conference is being held in Texas March 14-17, 2004.

EPA Region II – Audrey Moore

• Budget cuts are definite although the exact numbers are unknown but are already affecting travel.
• Grants funded:
  • Strategic Ag Initiative
    • Risk management of peach rusty spot,
    • An organic materials review guide,
  • Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
    • Urban IPM
• The pollution prevention program RFP should be out next month.

EPA Region III – John Butler

Grants: Last year region 3 funded

A project on greenhouse IPM in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture,

A study of watermelon disease,

Sustainable ag on the farm,

A pest control survey on lima beans in Delaware,

Urban IPM in schools.

The RFP for the Strategic Ag Initiatives Program will be out in June or July, 2004.

Northeast Directors Report – Zane Helsel

National Budget: In discussions during the January 2004 meeting of the Northeast Extension Directors, the group expressed strong support for the continuance of NEREAP-IPM, but encourage the group to determine its relationship to NEIPM Center and how the two organizations fit.

The general 10% cut in funding for CSREES line items is being addresses in Arizona today. Part of the discussion will be whether to ask for a supplemental bill to restore funding to 2003 levels or to seek new funding lines with the goal of solidifying funding sources for the future. The current presidential budget recommends that the cuts in 2004 be restored to 2003 levels in 2005.

E-Extension: E-Extension, proposed years ago, aims to be a google type search for all extension information nation-wide. While the project has been studied for 2 years by a team of 15 people and is in theory generally supported, there are also concerns particularly that:
• This giant database of information would cause the loss of extension agents,
• If all states are included, whose information would show at the top of the search list?
• This project is expensive (some estimates as high as $27 million). How will it be funded?
• Will the database become overloaded with all the states’ information?
• This type of search engine already exists partially at other sites and e-extension representatives are not in communication with these entities.

Funding options currently being considered for e-extension are to take the money off the 3d and 3c lines or to ask Congress for an additional line of funding. Neither of these methods are well supported.

Personnel: Tom Fretz, the former Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Maryland Cooperative Extension, replaces Dave Mackensie as the Executive Director of the Northeast Regional Association of Agricultural Extension Station Directors (NERA). Bob Seem has a new role in Geneva as the Acting Director of the NY Agricultural Experiment Station, which may affect his involvement in groups such as NEREAP-IPM.

National CSREES Update – Michael Fitzner

Update: The CSREES Plant Sciences Update is a 13-page document highlighting recent happenings and is available on the web at: http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/psupdate04/feb-march.pdf.

Budget Issues: Due to the federal budget delays, the flow of paperwork associated with grant money is also delayed meaning that funds will need to be moved through the CSREES budget office in a shortened amount of time this year.

Cuts to programs within the CSREES budget are not related to the quality of the programs under its umbrella, but rather to a glitch in the budgeting process and it is felt that funding will be restored to 2003 levels in 2005. NERA* will be supporting certain line item funding decisions and stakeholders can express their concerns to the congress, although no government employees may lobby for their own program. Since the NE region has the least amount of agriculture of all the regions nationwide, a good strategy may be to work in conjunction with other regions to let congress know the negative impacts of the 2004 cuts.
The total CSREES budget for 2004 remained level in spite of a nearly across the board cut of 10% to most programs, however the amount going to federal administration and special grants increased accordingly. These earmarks will allow money to go to targeted state projects.

Bio-security - Bio-security is a key federal effort at this point and state IPM programs should look to see how they can collaborate in this effort.

RIPM Grant Management: Administration of the Regional IPM funding is now officially completed by the NEIPM Center which helps to alleviate the concerns expressed by the GAO about an appearance of conflict of interest originating from NEREAP’s participation in the drafting of the RIPM RFA and also having some of these same NEREAP members being awarded RIPM funding. NEREAP should continue to supply recommendation to the NEIPM Center about priorities in the RFA, but members can no longer help write parts of the RFA.

 

IPM Roadmap Progress Evaluation – Michael Fitzner, William Hoffman, and William Coli

Over time, there have been several systems for the evaluation of IPM successes and although the GAO and OMB requirements for evaluation are not the same, some version of evaluation is necessary to prove to congress that IPM programs are worthy of funding. The Bush administration has launched an effort to review performance and identify duplicative efforts in federal programs with the goal of cutting programs based on these evaluations.

The IPM Roadmap spells out the goals of the IPM program. Looking at those goals, the Northeast Region needs to show how they are being addressed. The Roadmap goals address:

• Economic impacts
• Reduced human health risk
• Reduced environmental risk

For each of these goals, the region needs to work on 4 to 6 national objectives that will help to meet each goal i.e. if the goal is “reduce human health risk” the objectives might be:

• Reduce worker exposure to pesticides
• Reduce dietary exposure to the human population
• Reduce human health risks from pests

For each objective, land-grant universities need to indicate how and what they are doing to address the objective. Data collected doesn’t need to prove results but rather gather evidence to indicate that IPM programs contribute to changes over time.

NEREAP-IPM can help by providing objectives and indicators that will be collected and disseminated by the NEIPM Center.

This is part 1of a 3 tiered reporting system which also includes PPRS reporting and focused evaluation projects intended to broaden the scope of the reporting system to include non-3d funded activities. In summary, the existing style of reporting will remain in place but be more closely tied with the national objectives outlined in the Roadmap. Multi-year impact forecasting will be phased out, but impacts will still be shared through success stories. This new reporting systems will begin in 2005-2006.

Questionnaires will be distributed to IPM Coordinators through the IPM Centers in April 2004 and are due back by May 15th when input will be gathered from regional technical committees, regional IPM steering committees, CSREES planning and accountability unit, and other federal government agencies.

CABI – Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International

By May 2004, each IPM Coordinator will receive a CD of CABI’s compendium of crop pests. Staff and professors at all land grant universities will have free access to this impressive collection of pest information. Students and those outside the LGUs will still be charged a fee for usage.

Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Program (SARE)

• SARE is holding a regional conference in Burlington in October 19-21, 2004. Content will be significant enough to attract those from outside the region.
• Herb Cole is retiring from Pennsylvania State University. He is coordinator for the professional development grants.
• A new publication on diversifying cropping systems is available in a downloadable version in English and Spanish.
• The sustainable Farmer Educator Program continues to expand with the goal to support farmer-to-farmer learning and establish stronger ties in the Northeast farm community.
• NE SARE has a quarterly publication “Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture”
  

Northeast IPM Center Update

The current NEIPM Center structure can be visualized below.

Website
At the moment, both the Northeast IPM and the NEIPM Center web sites are redundant in many aspects. A new web design is nearly ready that combines content from both sites and will be public before by summer 2004. Along with what is already available, the new site will also incorporate a searchable database of IPM resources from all the states in the region.

Biennial IPM Conference:
The NEIPM Center is sponsoring a regional conference in late March or early April 2005. The top location choices are Manchester, NH, Providence, RI, or Baltimore, MD. The main focus will be community IPM, but other topics will also be included. Anyone wanting to participate in the organization of this event is welcome and need only notify Jim or Liz. Marion Gold volunteers to aid in this effort as a NEREAP representative.

State Network Projects:
The grant that funds the NEIPM Center states that the Northeast region should create a network throughout the states to answer questions pertaining to pest management questions coming from agencies like EPA. In the northeast, each state can compete for up to $15,000 to house their part of the network and an extra $5,000 to manage grant money flowing into their state from the NEIPM Center. The start date on these and other NEIPM Center grants is in January, but the award notification won’t be until March or April 2004, so these grants can be backdated.

Critical Issues:
Anyone can apply for this money at any time of the year. Proposals will be reviewed by the NEIPM Center steering committee as long as there is money available.

IPM Working Groups:
Officially there are still 6 broad IPM working groups, although the public health and community groups are proposing to work more closely together. All groups have produced IPM needs lists/priorities for their commodities and some of those lists are prioritized. Three of the groups have been competitively funded to collect and enter IPM resources such as fact sheets and field guides into the database housed at the NEIPM Center. Two groups are compiling contact information for experts in IPM and related fields in the Northeast to be added to the national database of experts.

NEREAP is asked to give feedback to the NEIPM Center on this first year of funding of Partnership Grant projects. The NEIPM Center wants to keep the application process simple and flexible. Suggestions during discussion include:

o Limiting the number of pages in the appendices.
o Separation of projects within one proposal for ease of review.
o Inclusion of state IPM websites in the granting process since web site design and maintenance is integral to the IPM message, but is expensive. Websites are now becoming the primary means of communication with local supporters within each state and many IPM Coordinators and other NEREAP members feel strongly that the need is high for quality websites, but funding is a problem especially for smaller states that have little core funding for their IPM program.

Regional IPM Grants Program – John Ayers

A handout of statistics of funded proposals shows trends in how many proposals are funded annually, from what state, if they are multistate efforts, who are the PIs and coPIs, what crops, and what pests.

This year, the grants manager received 50 letters of intent, 33 complete proposals were submitted and 10 were funded, a much bigger number than in years past. With the 10% cut in funding this year, there is $602,875 available, which was partly made up by eliminating facilitator expenses. $20,000 was still maintained for grants management costs.

It became apparent that the deadline for the proposals falling on the Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday was a problem in 2003. Attempts will be made to avoid this in 2004 and also to avoid having the same deadline as SARE.

Pre-proposals

• Some NEREAP members pointed out that RIPM proposals require a large amount of work for both the PI and grant administrators with a fairly limited success rate. They requested that pre-proposals be considered to help researchers be more efficient with their time.
• One problem with pre-proposals is that they may require review panels to meet twice where now the Relevancy Panel communicates via conference call and only the Technical Panel travels. It is suggested that the Pre-proposal Panel replace the Relevancy Panel.
• SARE uses pre-proposals and is happy with the process. Knowledge of the type of proposals being submitted also helps SARE to choose the best professionals to be on the review panel.
• A discussion about whether PIs should be given feedback, prior to the completion of the granting process, is left without resolution, with some NEREAP members feeling this would give unfair advantage to PIs and others feeling that it might encourage more collaboration.
• A working group consisting of Ana Legrand, Rakesh Chandran, Paul Curtis, Jennifer Grant, Ed Rajotte, and Bill Coli drafted the following recommendation for the RIPM proposal process:

  We move to recommend to the NEIPM Center leadership that they consider the following procedures for soliciting and reviewing the Regional IPM grants:
  1. Call for proposals approximately 60 days in advance of the proposal due date;
  2. Create a panel to screen pre-proposals for relevancy to the regional and for technical feasibility,
  3. Solicit full proposals from PI’s whose projects pass this initial screening.
  4. Pre-proposals consist of 2-3 pages and include methods and design, relevancy statement, likely impacts, and budget.
  5. The panel consists of regionally based members representing the public and private sector and are knowledgeable in the focus of the IPM Roadmap.

  Advantages: Saves PI’s hours of work to submit full proposals that have little or no chance of funding

  The vote of NEREAP members on this recommendation was 1 opposed, all others in favor.
  

NEREAP Business:

• Rakesh Chandran is nominated to be the incoming chair of NEREAP-IPM and the nomination is seconded.
• The vote of NEREAP members in favor of this nomination is unanimous.
• The next NEREAP meeting will be held during the week of the Regional IPM Conference set to be held in late March or early April 2005. The location is to be determined. No one is opposed to a single day meeting.
  

Role of NEREAP in the overall IPM agenda:

NEREAP is the official name for a group that has been meeting for many years under different names, but always including the state IPM coordinators of the Northeast. Now that the NEIPM Center is funded to work on regional issues, NEREAP can flex into a role that makes the best use of the expertise it encompasses. NEREAP is represented at the NEIPM Center advisory council and steering committee levels, officially by the current NEREAP chair and a dedicated NEREAP representative (a 3 year term), but there are also currently 7 others from NEREAP with cross membership.

Primarily NEREAP’s role is to recommend what regional projects are the most important to tackle as a regional unit pertaining to IPM programming. Its secondary role is as a policy setting body and advisory group to the NEIPM Center, the extension program directors, and national agencies.

How does this relate to the NEIPM Center?

At the last advisory council meeting of the NEIPM Center, the group reached consensus on the following statement supporting the continuance and importance of NEREAP-IPM:

The NEIPM Center depends on NEREAP-IPM for crucial research, education, and outreach support of IPM programs that benefit all stakeholders in the region. Individually, the IPM Coordinators offer state-level focus and accountability for programmatic initiatives. As a group, NEREAP-IPM acts as a conduit for specializing expertise, technical capability, and historical perspective that is unique to a land grant university and essential to the success of the Center.

At that same meeting, the NEIPM Center agreed upon a mission statement:

The Northeastern Integrated Pest Management Center fosters the development and adoption of IPM, a science-based approach to managing pests in ways that generate economic, environmental, and human health benefits. We work in partnership with stakeholders from agricultural, urban, and rural settings to identify and address regional priorities for research, education, and outreach.

In comparison, there are several descriptive statements for NEREAP IPM housed at http://northeastipm.org/ne.ipm.region.html#nereap and http://northeastipm.org/nereap/nereap.html:

1. The mission of the committee is to optimize the effectiveness of IPM research and extension activities in the region by maximizing cooperation among state, federal, and other IPM efforts.
2. The Northeast Research, Extension, and Academic Program Committee for IPM is the policy-setting body for cooperative IPM programming within the region.
3. The NEREAP Committee for IPM is responsible for improving communication and cooperation throughout the region between extension and research personnel working on IPM projects. The committee also plans and promotes the development of multistate IPM research and extension programs, guides the Northeast region IPM grants program, provides oversight on the evaluation and impact of IPM programs, and serves as the policy-setting body for the cooperative IPM activities within the region.

   NEREAP-IPM members represent both research and extension programs and were appointed by the research directors and extension directors at the members’ respective institutions.

There is some concern among NEREAP members that the IPM working groups are supplanting the role of NEREAP in that they are also regional groups with the goal of setting priorities, but it is pointed out that the IPM working groups are more specific to an IPM setting and that NEREAP is a more broad-based group with a much longer history and larger vision.
Part of the benefits of having the NEREAP group is for IPM coordinators and other NEREAP members to simply get together and talk about their programs and how they might cooperate.

General Suggestions for Future Goals:

• Redesign the agenda next year to focus more on their advisory role.
• Review priorities set by IWGs to create a more general regional set of priorities. A set of priorities from NEREAP would be influential in the decision-making process of any grants program in the region.
• Give input on RIPM RFA. Deadline for input is July 15, 2004.
• IPM coordinators want to be more involved in IWGs by either directly participating or recommending members.

Mike Fitzner points out that NEREAP can also advise CSREES about issues like the one brought up regarding the need for each state IPM program to have its own web presence. This type of advice is helpful at the national level to let them know what core tools are needed to support a successful program.

Collaboration:

George Hamilton will coordinate a subgroup of NEREAP-IPM members to work on the issue of collaboration and to better define suggestions made to the NEIPM Center. It is suggested that all NEREAP members submit suggestions and concerns to be reviewed by the working group. Participating in this collaborative committee are Ed Rajotte, Marion Gold, Sandy Sardanelli, and George.

Collaborative Effort Suggestions:

• With a larger than usual turnover in extension directors, NEREAP will need to advise and provide history to those who are new representative
• Make better use of web-based climate and pest prediction tools
• Give input into the makeup of IPM working group members.
• Make sure IPM coordinators are involved in working group proceedings.
• Express the necessity for state IPM program websites not only to be maintained but also to be improved.
• Make sure the NEREAP group addresses the “big picture” of IPM i.e. the national picture. Look for where we can collaborate to best use our expertise and seek funding opportunities for the region, for example working with NRCS to develop standards for IPM.
• Next year’s agenda should allow more time for state reports to help identify where states can work together.
  

Summary of Critical Points

Timelines:

• April 2004 – NEIPM Center distributes new evaluation questionnaire to IPM Coordinators
• May 15th, 2004 – evaluation questionnaires due
• October 19-21, 2004 - SARE regional conference in Burlington
• July 15, 2004 – deadline for suggestions regarding the RIPM Grants program RFA.

Recommendations:

• Add a button for extension to the new NEIPM Center web site.
• Create a more current mission statement for NEREAP-IPM

Resolutions:

• NEREAP in conjunction with the NEIPM Center will create a document of the impacts of the federal budget cuts on states in the Northeast to send to congress.
• NEREAP will work with NEIPM Center to collect evaluation objectives and indicators by May 15, 2004 to share with regional technical committees, RIPMC steering committees, and other government agencies. Bill Coli and Bill Hoffman will make further contact on this item.
• We move to recommend to the NEIPM Center leadership that they consider the following procedures for soliciting and reviewing the Regional IPM grants:
  1. Call for proposals approximately 60 days in advance of the proposal due date;
  2. Create a panel to screen pre-proposals for relevancy to the regional and for technical feasibility, and,
  3. Solicit full proposals from PI’s whose projects pass this initial screening.
  4. Pre-proposals consist of 2-3 pages and include methods and design, relevancy statement, likely impacts, and budget.
  5. The panel consists of regionally based members representing the public and private sector and knowledgeable in the focus of the IPM Roadmap.

     The vote of NEREAP members on this recommendation is 1 opposed, all others in favor.

  The next NEREAP meeting will be held during the week of the Regional IPM Conference set to be held in late March or early April 2005. The location is to be determined. No one is opposed to a single day meeting.

Committees and Representatives:

• George Hamilton becomes the NEREAP chair for 2004.
• Rakesh Chandran is nominated and voted in unanimously to become the incoming chair of NEREAP-IPM in the year 2005.
• Collaborative Efforts committee: George Hamilton (leader), Ed Rajotte, Marion Gold, and Sandy Sardanelli.
• Marion Gold is the NEREAP representative in planning the NEIPM Center regional IPM conference set for 2005.

*Glossary:

APHIS CAPS-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service- Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey
CABI - Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International
CSREES- Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
FQPA – Food Quality Protection Act
GAO – general accounting office
IPM – integrated pest management
LGU – land grand university
NERA - Northeast Regional Association of Agricultural Extension Station Directors – Northeast Integrated Pest Management Center
NEREAP – Northeast Research, Education, and Academic Program
NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation Service
OMB – Office of Management and Budgets
PI – Principle Investigator
RCE – Rutgers Cooperative Extension
RFA – Request for applications
RIPM-Regional IPM
SARE – Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Program