Workshop/Conference Reports for the Western IPM Center

AgroEcological Regions: The Application of Watershed
Basic and Ecoregion Analytical Tools to Pest Management
Date: October 25-26, 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon

Below is the summary of the workshop, "AgroEcological Regions: The Application of Watershed Basic and Ecoregion Analytical Tools to Pest Management," held October 25-26, 2001 at Oregon State University. A second coalition meeting is set December 6-7, 2001 in Portland, Oregon.

Contents

AgroEcological Regions: The Application of Watershed, Basin and Ecoregion Analytical Tools to Pest Management

USDA/CSREES Western Region Pest Management Center (University of California, Davis)
Integrated Pest Management Center (Oregon State University)
Pacific Northwest Pest Management Coalition
October 25-26, 2001
Oregon State University

Workshop Summary

Participants: (see Appendix 3) Mario Ambrosino, Waheed Bajwa, John Bolte, Len Coop, Catherine Daniels, Joe DeFrancesco, Allan Deutsch, Stanley Gregory, Ronda Hirnyck, Tom Jahns, Jeffrey Jenkins, Paul Jepson, Marcos Kogan, Kelvin Koong, Daniel McGrath, Rick Melnicoe, James Omernik, Linda Parks, Myron Shenk, and Wendy Walker

Workshop Organizer and Contact: Paul Jepson, IPPC, Oregon State University, jepsonp@bcc.orst.edu, (541-737-9082)

1. The objectives of the workshop were: (see Appendix 4) to discuss the concept of the agroecological region as it may apply to pest management problems in the Western Region, particularly the Pacific Northwest; to review programs and analytical approaches of direct relevance to the development of pest management systems at agroecological regional scales; to identify priorities for method development in the Western Region; to identify potential collaborators within the region (e.g. owners of data, technical specialists, stakeholder groups); to build capacity within the Western Regional Pest Management Center for addressing pest management issues at the crop matrix, cropping system and agroecoregion scales; to develop a technical resource, through publication and outreach, that might benefit other regional centers.

2. The workshop format (see Appendices 4 and 5) was to review a number of projects in areas that overlapped with current research and outreach needs and priorities for pest management. This overlap was in the form of the data sets in use, the geographic area under analysis, the stakeholder community that was involved, the expertise, software and hardware required for the analysis, and the specific questions and concepts that were being addressed.

3. The meeting was designed to be consistent with the Draft National Road Map for IPM (Appendix 1) and the most recent vision for the development of Regional Pest Management Centers (Appendix 2).

4. Workshop proceedings will be published, with copies of slides from the presentations, on the USDA/CSREES Western Region Pest Management Center and Pacific Northwest Pest Management Coalition (PNW Coalition) web sites, by the end of 2001. Opportunities for more detailed proceedings and the presentation of meeting summaries at further PM Center meetings are also being discussed.

5. The timeline for review of the draft workshop summary documentation was Monday, November 19, 2001. This is the final summary report. A follow-up meeting will take place as part of the forthcoming PNW Coalition Meeting (Western Region Pest Management Center programs in AK, ID, OR, UT and WA) in Portland, OR, on December 6 and 7. If you would like to participate in this discussion, please contact Tom Jahns (University of Alaska) at fftrj@uaf.edu. The latest agenda for the meeting from Tom is enclosed in Appendix 6.

6. The conclusions were as follows:

• The workshop was productive and met most of its objectives. Participants identified a number of areas for further collaboration, conceptually and technically, and agreed an agenda for following up these ideas. They also agreed that the most important conclusions from the meeting should be discussed more widely in a regional and national context. Plans for this will be developed further at the December 6th and 7th meeting in Portland, OR.

• It was agreed that the term ecoregion should be substituted for the term agroecoregion. The EPA ecoregion concept is already in wide use and application in the USA, Canada and Mexico. It encompasses the concepts that we wish to apply to the term "agroecoregion." By using this term and its underlying concepts, we integrate new research and outreach areas in pest management with programs that are currently being undertaken by numerous other agencies involved in ecosystem management. We therefore enhance cooperation and integration and foster mutual understanding.

• EPA Level 4 ecoregions seemed to offer the best initial scope for the development of new tools in pest management. They may offer a degree of unification of geographic regions with similar attributes in a number of areas, including for example, water quality, patterns of land use, and aspects of agricultural productivity, including climate and soil type. Ecoregions may offer a more logical basis for the development of an integrated approach to the management of pests, compatible with other land uses, than for example, basins. They may also provide a geographic focus for the development of integrated investment plans for federal, state and regional funding in IPM, water quality, sustainable agriculture etc.

• Level 3 and 4 ecoregions have been defined for the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington and Idaho).  Level 3 ecoregions have been defined for Alaska.  Although electronic coverages and descriptions are available for all of these ecoregions in these states, published versions are only available for western OR and WA, the Columbia Plateau and Blue Mountains in eastern OR and WA, and the level III ecoregions of AK.  A publication covering the Idaho ecoregions is in press and a publication for all of Oregon is in development.

• There is evidence that problems associated with agricultural land uses (including salinity and nitrates and pesticides in water), vary in a way that is consistent with ecoregion definitions.

• The degree to which the epidemiology and management of pests, diseases and weeds is compatible with the ecoregion concept is likely to vary with the crop matrix in question, the specific organisms that cause economically damaging problems and the control tactics that are used against them.

• A number of projects were scoped out to test compatibility of pest management problems with ecoregional scales at a number of levels.

• The possible development of ‘crop matrix’ strategic plans (sensu USDA Pest Management Strategic Plans, but for groups of crops rather than single crops) that are applicable to agriculture within a particular ecoregion was discussed. These would be applicable to crop matrices that share pests, diseases, weeds and control tactics, particularly pesticides, in common. For example (1) cutworms attack multiple crops in the Willamette Valley and strategic planning that took this crop matrix into account would address aspects of pest biology and interactions between crops that affect control decisions; (2) strategic planning that includes dormant sprays and diazinon use in CA almonds, might also benefit from an integrated approach that includes multiple crops treated with the same active ingredients: continued access to these chemicals in almonds may depend upon prioritization of needs in neighboring commodities where use is less critical.

• The crop matrix strategic plan was seen as being of great significance for the development of self-regulatory strategies by grower groups. The groups might wish to retain specific chemical uses within particular crops in a crop matrix, and they would require a multi-crop strategic plan to develop this case and to implement it.

• The idea is also applicable to biological control implementation, and risk assessment for the use of biological agents for the control of noxious invasive weeds.

• PM Center programs in Alaska and Washington propose to identify the degree to which similar crops and crop matrices share pest management problems in common. It was agreed that ecoregion maps might be used in the development of pest, disease and weed distribution maps.

• The more general development of ecoregion based pest distribution maps was also discussed, and a project is being scoped out.

• Alaska, by virtue of its isolation, the limited scale of its agriculture and relative simplicity of its pest spectrum may also form an ideal model for the scoping out of an ecoregion-based crop matrix strategic plan by the PNW Consortium. Lorsban use for root maggot control in cole crops could form an initial focus.

• The use of more locally resolved landscape generator technology was also discussed. A number of possible projects for future development were identified including:

• The development of vulnerability maps that identify sensitivities associated with pesticide use, and the contamination of ground and surface water.

• The development of maps that permit pest and disease forecasting to take into account local climatic patterns and the pattern and layout of individual crops.

• The development of geographically explicit tests of theory and models, applicable to pest management, including the resource concentration hypothesis, models that determine the layout of natural enemy refugia, and landscape ecology models that predict the distribution of organisms from the layout of specific geographic and land use features.

• A plan for how these ideas are to be addressed will be developed in December.

• A number of models applicable to these ideas are already under development, including the watershed restoration model presented by Bolte at the workshop, and the Idaho Oneplan Nutrient Management Planning Tool for producers, which is in the process of implementation. It was agreed that Bolte would be invited to the December workshop, and if possible, representatives of the Oneplan project.

• The PNW Pest Management Consortium, in collaboration with the Western Regional Pest Management Center, will develop a structured plan, tuned to specific stakeholder needs, that builds upon the outcome from the workshop, and which develops novel tools for pest management implementation on scales that are more compatible with current agriculture than the single crop models that form the basis for much of our current thinking.
  

Appendix 1

A National Road Map for
Pest Management 2001 - 2010
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Vision: Wide scale adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) will result in more economically viable, environmentally compatible, socially responsible, and sustainable crop production systems for the United States by 2010.

Mission: The pest management mission of USDA and its partners is to improve farm profitability and safeguard human health and the environment through discovery, development, extension and verification of safer, more effective, and more economical pest management systems.

Objective 1: Develop and promote pest management approaches designed to improve farm profitability and agricultural sustainability.

Strategies: Define and publish the elements (tactics) of IPM major and minor cropping systems of the United States.

Develop and implement rapid, accurate monitoring and prediction systems for pest infestations and their resulting damage. Refine, verify, and implement action thresholds for key pests and pest complexes of major cropping systems. Improve the efficiency of suppression tactics and demonstrate least cost options and pest management alternatives.

Objective 2: Promote the adoption of pest management systems for agricultural and non-agricultural environments that minimize non-target impacts.

Strategies: Design and promote effective pesticide application technologies that permit precise targeting of pesticides, particularly in high-risk situations and during adverse treatment conditions.

Develop and demonstrate crop production practices that reduce surface water and sediment movement off fields and non-agricultural sites. Develop and promote practices to replace pesticides that pose high risk to surface drinking water supplies. Demonstrate appropriate buffer zones or other practices to protect non-target areas from pesticide drift and other encroachments.

Objective 3: Implement pest management approaches designed to eliminate unacceptable pesticide residues in crop commodities used for food, especially those consumed by infants and children.

Strategies: Develop alternatives to pesticides that have resulted in unacceptable residue levels in food crop commodities.

Determine pesticide application methods, timing, and placement that result in improved efficacy with reduced pesticide residues in raw agricultural commodities. Develop methods that will minimize pesticide residues that are found in both raw and processed foods.

Objective 4: Develop and implement pest management programs that maintain safe, functional recreational, roadside, right-of-way and native habitat environments.

Strategies: Develop pest management approaches for turfgrass, other landscape plantings, and aquatic sites that require less intensive pesticide use while maintaining functional and aesthetic standards.

Document the most effective ways to manage the encroachment of invasive species and facilitate the return of endemic species to native habitats.

Objective 5: Design and implement community-based pest management programs for residential, school, and public area environments that emphasize prevention programs and low-risk suppression technologies.

Strategies: Expand and publicize the "IPM in Schools" program now in existence so it can be implemented nationwide.

Develop and disseminate a Residential Pest Management program to encourage adoption of IPM by homeowners Organize and publicize community stakeholder groups to administer the local community pest management efforts.

Appendix 2

Future Development of Regional Pest Management Centers

October 18, 2001

TO: Regional Pest Management Center Directors:
John Ayers, Norm Neisheim, Larry Olsen
Michael Gray, Rick Melnicoe, Frank Zalom
Michael Hoffmann, Russ Mizell

FR: Dennis D. Kopp

CSREES Liaison to Regional Centers
Michael Fitzner
CSREES IPM Program Leader

RE: Future Development of Regional Pest Management Centers

The FY 2000 request for proposals for Pest Management Centers stated that the four regional pest management centers funded in FY 2000 will be instrumental in creating a regional process that will evolve into Agroecological Pest Management Centers in FY 2003, based upon agroecologically defined crop production regions and required the four Centers to facilitate an interactive process designed to identify appropriate boundaries for agroecological pest management areas in the United States.

Regional pest management center directors have facilitated discussions about the future role and configuration of Centers. We have followed these discussions closely. Center Directors and members of the National IPM Steering Committee engaged in a discussion on this topic at a joint meeting held September 25-26, 2001. A key question in this discussion was "Should pest management centers be reconfigured into 8-12 agroecosystem regions in FY 2003?" Based on discussions at this meeting and other discussions within USDA and EPA, we believe that there are probably more viable options than a reconfiguration of current pest management centers into agroecosystem regions.

While there is merit to the organization of research and education efforts along agroecological boundaries, there are fiscal, political and time barriers that would be difficult to overcome. In our opinion, these barriers make reconfiguration into agroecosystem centers impractical at this time. The barriers that have been identified include:

Administrative Costs. The estimated cost of staffing and maintaining a functional pest management center is approximately $300,000 per year. It would require an additional $2.4 million to cover the administrative costs associated with an increase from four to twelve regional centers.

Coordination Challenges. A core function of pest management centers is to facilitate a two-way information network connecting the Department of Agriculture and regulatory agencies with pest management expertise and information available at the regional and state levels. From the federal standpoint, 8-12 regional center points-of-contact would be more cumbersome to work with.

Organizational Challenges. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to build a consensus on a reconfiguration based on agroecological regions. This is the result of technical issues as well as state, institutional and programmatic rivalries that are difficult to overcome. These factors would make the development of a Request for Applications for a national competitive grants process very difficult. Several potential problems are envisioned, including the identification of agroecosystem boundaries, the potential for overlap, and the potential for areas to be omitted.

Links to Multistate Efforts. A major portion of CSREES partnership effort is focused through the four existing administrative regions. These administrative regions benefit from the support and leadership provided by the land-grant university system. Agroecological regions would not build upon existing programs and structures, thus making partnership efforts more cumbersome.

We propose the following points to guide the further development of regional pest management centers:

1. CSREES will continue to support a regional pest management initiative facilitated by centers located at four host institutions, one in each of the four administrative regions (North Central, Northeastern, Southern, Western). CSREES will select the four host institutions through a process consistent with legislative intent of funding lines. It is expected that minimally there will be one full-time person at each center supported by federal funds.

2. The formation and coordination of a pest management information network will continue to be a core function of regional pest management centers.

3. Regional pest management centers will have a primary role in the facilitation and formation of research and extension teams and coalitions to address priority pest management needs at an appropriate level C agroecosystem, multistate, regional, or national. Centers will encourage the formation of teams of state/territory participants around shared multistate or regional issues and high priority stakeholder-identified needs and problems. Team formation will connect to existing regional administrative structures and in conjunction with multi-state research and extension committees or, if no multi-state effort exists, as a new initiative. Teams may develop at the regional level but should not be confined to the states in a given region. Teams should not be considered permanent entities, but should have a defined life-cycle. There should be great flexibility in the way teams are configured, their life-span, and the issues and commodities that they address.

4. Regional pest management centers will form strong connections to regional administrative structures (e.g., executive directors, land-grant administrative associations/structures, multistate committees, etc.). Centers will be expected to engage these structures to identify and develop a coordinated response to priority stakeholder needs and to facilitate effective utilization of federal and other resources to address those needs.

5. CSREES and pest management centers will ask participating universities to designate a single point-of-contact to facilitate communication regarding pest management issues on and external to campus. Participating universities will also be encouraged to form cross-program pest management advisory committees to strengthen within-state cooperation and coordination for plant protection programs.

6. Regional pest management centers will not be made of "bricks and mortar"; rather, they will serve a facilitating, coordinating and leadership function for pest management issues. The staff associated with pest management centers will be housed at host institutions.

7. CSREES will explore the feasibility of modifying the funding authorization to provide for more stability in the pest management center/host institution network than is provided by a three-year grant cycle.

The points outlined here represent the first step in an evolutionary process to move regional pest management centers to their next level of functionality and into the funding cycle that begins October 1, 2002. We believe these points are consistent with our collective vision for pest management centers, and provide for the continued evolution of this regionally-focused pest management initiative. As we continue with this partnership effort, it will be useful to keep in mind that this is a work in progress C there is not a specific template to guide us as we design pest management centers.

In our view, continuing with four regional pest management centers will minimize administrative costs, thus making more dollars available to focus on regional programmatic issues and needs. Four centers should be better able to facilitate the formation of teams and coalitions to address stakeholder-identified needs by linking with existing regional administrative and programmatic structures.

We believe regional pest management centers provide an important mechanism for enhancing leadership, coordination, and management of USDA's pest management programs, as recommended by the Government Accounting Office in its recent report on USDA's integrated pest management programs. We also believe it is essential that we, as a partnership, respond to GAO's recommendation that measurable goals and expected outcomes be identified for the pest management research and education effort. The draft document titled "National Road Map for Pest Management" is the start of an effort to accomplish this at the national level. We encourage you to carefully review the road map and send us your comments and suggestions regarding how it can be improved.

Thank you for the tremendous progress you have made in establishing regional pest management centers. Your participation is essential as we continue development of this regional pest management initiative. CSREES will continue listening to you and working with you to further develop regional pest management centers and address the needs of the stakeholders of our research and education community. We welcome your input into this ongoing process.

Appendix 3

Participants List

Appendix 4

Dates: October 25 and 26, 2001

Times: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, October 25; 9:00 am - noon, October 26

Location: CHM2Hill Alumni Center, OSU Campus, room 114, October 25; Holiday Inn, 781 NE 2nd St., Corvallis, October 26

Accommodation: Holiday Inn, 781 NE 2nd St., Corvallis, OR (541-752-0060) Room rate $69 per night.

Costs: There will be no charge to delegates, other than accommodation and evening meals

Catering: Continental breakfast at CHM2Hill Alumni Center 8:00 am - 9:00 am, October 25; working lunch, October 25; location for evening meal to be determined, October 25; working continental breakfast at Holiday Inn, October 26; working boxed lunch, prior to departure.

Registration Arrangements: Confirm attendance to Linda Parks (IPPC) at parksl@bcc.orst.edu (541- 737- 6273) or Paul Jepson at jepsonp@bcc.orst.edu (541-737-9082) by Monday, October 15.

Program Format

October 25, 2001

Morning: Presentations of specific projects and concepts

Lunch: Discussions with contributors

Afternoon: Focus on applications of concepts and ideas to pest management, and the development of agroecological regions

October 26, 2001

Morning: Development of a program for continuing discussion, and identification of themes for research collaboration. Development of workshop proceedings and the allocation of follow-up tasks.

Contributors and Themes
Paul Jepson, IPPC, Oregon State University
Introduction

Jim Omernik, USEPA, Corvallis
Ecoregions: Concepts and Applications

John Bolte, Bioresource Engineering, Oregon State University
Methods and Tools for Watershed Restoration

Stan Gregory, Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University
Willamette Basin Ecosystem Analysis

Jeff Jenkins, Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University
Watershed Level Pesticide Management

Len Coop, IPPC, Oregon State University
Regional Climatic Models, Pest and Disease Phenology and On-Line Decision Tools

Marcos Kogan, IPPC, Oregon State University
Area-wide and Ecoregion Level Pest Management

Paul Jepson, IPPC, Oregon State University
Oregon State of Environment Report, and Summing Up

The Objectives of the Workshop

Each project to be presented has some overlap with the needs and priorities for pest management. This overlap may be in the form of the data sets in use, the geographic area in question, the stakeholder community that is involved, the expertise, software and hardware required for the analysis, and even the specific questions and concepts that are being addressed. Review of these projects in a workshop setting will permit the following objectives to be pursued:

1. To discuss the concept of agroecological regions as it may apply to pest management problems in the Western Region, particularly the Pacific Northwest

2. To review programs and analytical approaches of direct relevance to the development of pest management systems at agroecological regional scales

3. To identify priorities for method development in the Western Region

4. To identify potential collaborators within the region (e.g. owners of data, technical specialists, stakeholder groups)

5. To build capacity within the Western Regional Pest Management Center for addressing pest management issues at the crop matrix, cropping system and agroecoregion scales

6. To develop a technical resource, through publication and outreach, that might benefit other regional centers.

Appendix 5

Presentation Schedule for Thursday, October 25, 2001

Appendix 6

The Second PNW Coalition Meeting
December 6 and 7, 2001
Fifth Avenue Suites Hotel
Portland, Oregon

Agenda

December 6 (Thursday): 2 - 6 p.m.

Introduction and Welcome: Tom Jahns (UAF Cooperative Extension Service)

Regional Updates: Linda Herbst (WRPMC — UC-Davis)

WRPMC activities update The future of existing Pest Management Centers Non-traditional PMSPs (forestry, livestock (confined animal units), irrigation water, mosquito districts (public health), etc.

The Idaho One Plan: Jim Wood (Idaho Department of Agriculture)
GIS and Mapping Interface— How can these tools be used to meet our needs?

AgroEcoregion Workshop Update and Future Direction — Paul Jepson (IPPC-Oregon State University)

December 7 (Friday): 8 a.m. - 6 p.m.

Introduction: Tom Jahns

AgroEcoregion Workshop Update and Future Direction Continued — Paul Jepson

State Reports (activity updates/special projects/ FY ‘02 proposal status):

Lunch: 12 - 1:30 p.m. (Red Star Tavern and Roast House, in hotel)

Regional Web-Page Revisited: Tom Jahns

General Topics for Discussion: