ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
1
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
April 7-8, 2010
University of California- Washington Center
1608 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC
Participants: Harold Coble, Ed Ready, Todd Scholz, Kevin Black, Eileen Cullen, Don Hershman,
Frank Zalom, Ed Rajotte, Stella Coakley, Blaine Viator, John Ayers, Susan Ratcliffe, Jim
VanKirk, Matthew Royer, Gail Wisler, Kitty Cardwell, Marty Draper, Benjamin Smallwood,
Heyward Baker. Guests: Meryl Broussard, Mike Fitzner
Wednesday: April 7, 2010
8:30am:
Arrival, Agenda Overview, and Introductions.
February 9th 2010 Steering Committee (SC) teleconference minutes approved.
8:45-9:45am: USDA NIFA liaisons to ipmPIPE, Presentation and Discussion
Meryl Broussard, Deputy Administrator of Plant and Animal Systems, presented an
overview of the transition from CSREES to NIFA. The National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) was established in the 2008 Farm Bill. A national task force process
included listening sessions and external stakeholder input leading up to official NIFA
launch October 2009. NIFA is composed of four institutes (Food Production &
Sustainability; Bioenergy, Climate, & Environment; Food Safety & Nutrition; and Youth,
Family, & Community). During initial NIFA transition phase, October 2009 to present,
Meryl Broussard and Ralph Otto are serving as Interim Deputy Directors of NIFA.
Rajiv Shah, former Undersecretary for Research, Education, and Economics, has
encouraged NIFA to think on a broader impact scale than in the past for USDA
agricultural research, extension, and education integrated competitive grant programs.
This is reflected in larger integrated projects supported by increased budgets per project
administered through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive
grants program. The position of NIFA Director and USDA Chief Scientist (Roger
Beachy), as a political appointee, is connected to the President’s administration and
USDA officials.
A “1010 package” formally presenting re-organization structure will be submitted to
Roger Beachy mid-April 2010. NIFA personnel assignments are to be cleared within 60
days of submission. This will clarify NIFA structure, sub-structure, and personnel
assignments. Each of the four institutes within NIFA will be co-led by NIFA
administrative personnel and a principal scientist. Principal scientist positions may be
filled via 1-2 year assignments to bring scientists in to participate in institute strategic
planning.
Goals: NIFA organizational structure will be outcome-oriented. NIFA will be integrated
across institutes so that project scope and funding mechanisms support integration of
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
2
research, extension, and education. NIFA will be administratively streamlined to focus on
five areas emphasized in the AFRI competitive grants program: 1) global food security
and hunger, 2) climate change, 3) sustainable energy, 4) childhood obesity, and 5) food
safety. Institutes will be integrated to avoid isolation between institutes within NIFA. In
the near future, after NIFA 1010 package process is complete, administrative and other
personnel assignments and contact information for NIFA institute leadership will be
available.
AFRI Competitive Grants Program: The AFRI program released 6 RFAs, March 2010,
around the five NIFA areas of emphasis. These five NIFA areas are aligned
foundationally with 6 priorities identified in the 2008 Farm Bill in the definition of AFRI.
Stakeholder input was key part of RFA development process. AFRI supersedes the
National Research Initiative grants program. AFRI RFAs released later than usual in
2010 due to the NIFA re-organization. In the future, RFAs are expected to have a fall
release date. Meryl Broussard encouraged ipmPIPE SC to forward positive comments, as
well as concerns or suggestions through formal channels associated with the AFRI
program website and associated contact individuals. NIFA will begin work on next RFAs
over the coming six-month period.
President’s FY10 $1.5 billion NIFA total budget proposal: All Formula funds are left
intact (both Hatch and Smith-Lever). Budget request includes proposal to eliminate 406
funds (i.e, Regional IPM Centers). The amount zeroed out from 406 funds could
conceivably be accessed competitively through AFRI. Intent is to grow programs through
competitive process. NIFA has received feedback from congressional staff, and
stakeholders.
(Ratcliffe): Will AFRI due dates overlap with non-AFRI proposal due dates such as SARE,
EIPM-CS?
Although most AFRI RFAs will come out at the same time, proposal due dates will be
staggered. Program will strive to coordinate between institutes within NIFA. AFRI RFAs
seek trans-disciplinary approach both in proposals and on review panels. AFRI program
personnel are aware of other non-AFRI grant program deadlines and the need for panel
availability during review process. Staggered deadlines should help in this regard.
(VanKirk): Will NIFA funding mechanisms be truly integrated to support Extension?
There is more emphasis on integrating research, extension, and education than ever
before. Prior to NIFA and AFRI, it has been challenging to get high quality Extension-led
proposals in. This is a new beginning. While historically, the number of Extension-led
proposals have been lower in number, the AFRI RFAs present new opportunities and
requirements for Extension-led, or major role, proposals.
(Wisler): What about commodity areas, for example sugar or floral, not specifically named in
AFRI RFAs?
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
3
It is a challenge. Meryl Broussard suggests looking to Specialty Crop Grant Initiative
(SCRI). The SCRI has established recent successful precedent for Extension-led projects.
(Coakley): AFRI RFAs call for projects that take a great deal of time and energy to partner and
plan in order to execute a successful proposal submission.
NIFA and other federal grant programs realize that developing large collaborative project
proposals require significant time and energy to partner, plan and execute proposal
submission. Planning grants are a good way to approach the process initially for some
efforts.
(Rajotte): State Extension Services nationally have concerns that NIFA reorganization and AFRI
funding mechanisms via competitive process will negatively impact on-going maintenance of
local county extension.
(Viator): It looks more likely that ipmPIPE will “tag” on to other grant proposals in a
collaborative manner, rather than a centralized funding structure specific to ipmPIPE fiscal
maintenance. Funding is likely to come from a variety of different sources over next five years of
ipmPIPE.
(Cardwell): This points to importance of ipmPIPE Steering Committee as a coordinating body.
(Smallwood): Continued role for ipmPIPE in support of integrated pest management (IPM)
decision support infrastructure. Within Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
mandate for sustainability, NRCS builds incentives into programs to increase IPM adoption.
ipmPIPE can play a substantial role as an IPM decision support system for farmers documenting
their IPM practices in NRCS programs.
Mike Fitzner provided overview of report entitled “New Biology for the 21st Century”
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12764. July, 2008, the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and Department of Energy (DOE)
asked the National Research Council’s Board on Life Sciences to convene a committee to
examine the current state of biological research in the United States and recommend how
best to capitalize on recent technological and scientific advances that have allowed
biologists to integrate biological research findings, collect and interpret vastly increased
amounts of data, and predict the behavior of complex biological systems. The committee
produced a report entitled “New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States
Leads the Coming Revolution,” and a set of recommendations recognizing that the most
effective leveraging of investments will come from a coordinated, interagency effort to
encourage the emergence of a New Biology that will enunciate and address broad and
challenging societal problems.
USDA – NIFA Approach
The report “New Biology for the 21st Century” bolsters the case for increasing the level
and effectiveness of USDA’s agricultural research, education, and extension programs.
These efforts have included creating NIFA and significantly increasing funding over
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
4
previous levels for integrated research, education, and extension programs. AFRI is one
of NIFA’s major programs through which to address critical societal issues such as those
laid out in the “New Biology for the 21st Century” report.
Mike Fitzner concluded with comments that the ipmPIPE has been noticed at CSREES
over the past several years. ipmPIPE brought together and re-networked Extension
specialists around food security and pest management issues. The soybean rust example
on ipmPIPE is viewed as a success story. With regard to NIFA and increased emphasis
on competitive funding process, will ipmPIPE be funded? AFRI provides an opportunity
for funding and/or collaboration with funded projects. It is unlikely that USDA will
dedicate earmarked funding for ipmPIPE project.
9:45 – 10:00 am:
National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants March 2010
meeting with Dr. Roger Beachy, USDA NIFA Director/Chief Scientist.
Blaine Viator reported on NAICC meeting with Roger Beachy 03/18/2010. NAICC
membership emphasized importance of IPM in the field at the local level. As part of this
discussion, Blaine Viator provided example of ipmPIPE, particularly with regard to
soybean rust. Conversation with Beachy clarified that ipmPIPE is separate from 406
programs. Beachy encouraged ipmPIPE to look for opportunities in AFRI RFAs. NAICC
also met with Senate office staff (e.g. Saxby Chambliss, GA). Discussion indicated
ipmPIPE should not expect congressional funds, rather funds would need to come from
affected industries or USDA.
Throughout the SC meeting, existing ipmPIPE component updates were provided by component
coordinators calling in to meeting via teleconference. In addition, other pest monitoring and/or
disease forecast modeling project leaders with informal ties and/or potential future fit for the
ipmPIPE platform called in to update SC on project plans.
10:00-10:20am:



ipmPIPE Soybean Rust Component Update (2010)
Southern Region IPM Center, IPM Enhancement Grants Program
(Seed Grant, PI Hershman)
Don Hershman discussed the current status of soybean rust monitoring in the U.S. for
2010. He indicated that check-off dollars administered through a United Soybean
Board/North Central Soybean Research Program grant, have been used to support base
monitoring activities in southern “tier 1” states, including AR, OK and SC. Some of the
tier 1 states have obtained local check-off funding to expand monitoring activities. He
anticipates about the same level of monitoring in the south during 2010 as in 2009. The
north is a different matter. Hershman expects a much reduced monitoring effort in many,
perhaps most, northern states. All funding for northern monitoring must come from local
check-off boards and funding requests and responses have been variable. However, all
northern states stand ready to respond to significant soybean rust threats by mobilizing
ad-hoc networks, when appropriate, as/if indicated by predictive models.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010

5
Don Hershman updated SC on a recently funded Southern Region IPM Center grant on
which he is PI through the IPM Enhancement Grants Program. This Seed Grant is
entitled “Workshop for Developing a Cost-effective Rational Strategy to Detect and
Manage Soybean Rust in the United States”.
Yield losses caused by soybean rust have been restricted to a few states in the deep
South. Moreover, the consistent pattern of late-season appearance of soybean rust (SBR)
in some southern and any northern states where detected since 2005, has led to a
substantial reduction in the perception of risk from SBR, particularly among stakeholders
in Northern regions. At the same time, reduced funding for the ipmPIPE sentinel plot
SBR network has forced the network to downsize. In anticipation of a reduced network,
preliminary network (Karen Garret, Kansas State University Plant Pathology) and
econometric (Steve Aultman, University of Minnesota Applied Economics) analyses
have been conducted by independent university research groups to develop rational
strategies for optimizing the location of SBR sentinel plots to cut costs while maximizing
utility of the information obtained from a reduced monitoring system.
Seed Grant funds will be used for a workshop meeting of southern and northern
university research/extension groups to: 1) develop a strategy to integrate the network
and econometric analyses for optimizing sentinel plot locations with epidemiology based
models of SBR spread and 2) develop a research proposal for conducting an integrated,
multidisciplinary analysis for optimizing the placement of sentinel plots in the southern
U.S., for the benefit of both southern soybean growers and the national soybean industry.
The workshop will take place in Pittsburg, PA on August 1-3, 2010.
10:20-10:35am:
10:35-11:00am:
--- BREAK ---Network analysis for forecasting spatial progress of soybean rust
epidemics and optimizing sentinel plot strategies
Karen Garrett, Kansas State University Plant Pathology, called in to update the SC on her
recently funded (North Central Region IPM Competitive Grants Program) project with
potential tie-in to the ipmPIPE. In collaboration between plant pathologists and electrical
engineers, Garret’s group has begun developing network models to forecast soybean rust
in the U.S. using sentinel plot data for model construction and validation.
Overall project goal is to apply the network models to determine which sentinel site
locations lead to the best predictions of soybean rust risk for U.S. North Central counties
using limited financial resources.
Project objectives are to:
1) Characterize soybean rust epidemics using network models for previous sentinel
site locations, and provide epidemic predictions to stakeholders through a project
website.
2) Select subsets of sentinel sites and mobile sites that optimize epidemic prediction
given financial and practical constraints identified by stakeholders.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
6
3) Iteratively evaluate the predictive capabilities of the model for selected subsets of
sentinel sites throughout the project, incorporating new soybean rust data as it
becomes available.
Garrett’s group will also be part of Don Hershman’s Southern Region IPM Enhancement
Seed Grant working group meeting (see above). This effort will link northern and
southern regions in an effort to improve efficiency of soybean rust sentinel plot locations
and national soybean rust epidemic forecasting for the U.S. soybean industry.
While the ipmPIPE SC is supportive of Garret’s project, the SC does not have funds to
offer to this effort. However, it is encouraging to see extension specialists and researchers
working together, garnering funding from other sources to continually improve soybean
rust monitoring and forecasting. The ipmPIPE SC, as a coordinating body, will continue
to foster collaborative efforts through the ipmPIPE platform where possible and
appropriate.
11:00-11:30am:
Potential role of ipmPIPE Steering Committee on grant
proposals in the future, related but new and/or separate
projects.
Scott Isard, Pennsylvania State University Plant Pathology, called in to update the SC on
his plans to submit an AFRI proposal in the Global Food Security area focused on
Program Delivery and Implementation of Wide-Area Pest Monitoring that will include
existing ipmPIPE crop:pest combinations. As USDA NIFA national program leaders,
Marty Draper and Kitty Cardwell left the room prior to, and during this call. Topic was
discussed in general terms from the perspective of acknowledging that the AFRI RFA
presents new opportunities for large projects to contribute to the overall goal of managing
high consequence pests, either independently or linked to ipmPIPE.
The SC discussed potential role of ipmPIPE SC related to current and future competitive
grant proposal initiatives. Other area-wide pest monitoring systems currently exist
outside the ipmPIPE. PestWatch http://www.pestwatch.psu.edu/ and Pennsylvania PIPE
http://pa-pipe.zedxinc.com, are two examples. This trend of related, but separate, areawide IPM pest monitoring and forecast systems is expected to continue. This is a positive
development that will help build integrated research/extension ipmPIPE-like decision
support tools for growers, consultants, and other agricultural production stakeholders.
As the ipmPIPE SC has no financial resources to contribute to new proposal efforts, and
seeks to avoid conflicts of interest that could potentially arise by collaborating or
advocating for any particular AFRI proposal(s), the SC consensus decision was to remain
impartial during proposal development phases and not advocate for or collaborate with
any particular project or projects. After any new projects are funded and additional
communication initiated, the SC is likely to serve as a coordinating body, where mutually
agreeable and beneficial to newly funded projects and stakeholders.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
11:30am – 12:00pm:
7
ipmPIPE Legume Component Update (2010)
Howard Schwartz, Colorado State University and Western Coordinator for Legume
ipmPIPE, called in to provide a 2010 component update. The Legume ipmPIPE network
is comprised of more than 100 sentinel plots in up to 30 states, provinces and districts of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Common bean (fresh and dry), cool-season (fresh and dry
peas, lentils, chickpeas), and warm-season (cowpeas and lima beans) legume crops and
four groups of legume diseases and insect pests have been selected by Extension
specialists and legume industry stakeholders for monitoring and reporting through the
ipmPIPE. Legume ipmPIPE began in 2008.
2009 activities progressed despite a limited budget. In collaboration with Sue Ratcliffe,
NC IPM Center, the legume ipmPIPE developed a promotional brochure and three sets of
field cards for disease, insect, and abiotic crop damage symptoms. Electronic media
include online bean disease videos and legume virus protocols. In a fall 2009 survey of
legume specialists and stakeholders, outreach materials and training efforts were deemed
important to educate and engage more of the stakeholder community during 2010. Todd
Scholz confirmed that stakeholders are using the field cards.
Howard Schwartz outlined specific legume ipmPIPE program issues and needs for 2010,
and requested that 2008 budget level be reinstated for 2010. Schwartz pointed out that
delayed allocation of 2009 ipmPIPE budget resources to the legume component are being
used for ongoing outreach efforts with stakeholders as well as 2009 reporting. 2009
delayed allocation funds are not sufficient to cover the full range of 2010 field monitoring
activities and survey implementation. USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) funding
will be critical to Legume ipmPIPE 2010 operational activities. RMA does not fund
maintenance of established ipmPIPE components. A concept note submitted to RMA by
Marty Draper for NIFA emphasized that the legume ipmPIPE is in the development
phase. Outcome of RMA concept note request to include 2010 legume component funds
is yet to be determined.
12:00-1:15pm:
--- LUNCH ---
1:15-2:15pm:
Section 1619 of 2008 Farm Bill
Kathy Handy, USDA APHIS PPQ called in to inform ipmPIPE SC about Section 1619,
facilitate discussion, and answer questions. Section 1619 language limits federal agency
ability to share information collected via geospatial systems. This may or may not affect
the ipmPIPE.
Section 1619 does not apply to USDA regulatory programs where participation by the
producer or landowner is required by law as a condition of product entry into marketplace
channels. However, voluntary programs are affected. For example, agricultural producers
or owners of agricultural land who provide any information to USDA or its
cooperators/contractors regarding the agricultural operation, farming, or conservation
practices, or the land itself, in order to participate in programs of the Department, OR,
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
8
geospatial information about agricultural land or operations. Under either of these two
scenarios, data may fall under Section 1619 and would be prohibited from release by the
Secretary, any officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture or any contractor or
cooperator of the Department of Agriculture.

County level information can be released. However, information must not identify
an individual. Discussion ensued about number of acres for a particular crop in a
county, region, or state. If a crop is produced by one or two growers in a county
and information released on pathogen or other pest presence, then there could be
cases where it is easy for the public, agricultural industry to determine which
grower or farm that information pertains to. Kathy Handy and Ed Ready pointed
out that as long as the information can be transformed statistically, and presented
in aggregate form, such a scenario should not be an issue. Data points can be
displayed on a map, as long as the points do not identify any particular farm or
individual. Kitty Cardwell pointed out that this is currently the situation for the
soybean rust ipmPIPE where the protocol already assures that no personal
identifiable information can be obtained about any data point. In cases where
there is truly one or very few growers of a commodity involved in geospatial
information provision, the grower would need to provide permission.

Data obtained by regulatory programs are not covered under Section 1619.

If growers have voluntarily entered data into a pest monitoring database, it is
implied that they are sharing it willingly, as long as they are aware and OK with
this. Data provision cannot be a requirement of any non-regulatory program
administered by or in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture.

The National Plant Diagnostic Clinics have a system for confirming permission
from growers or agricultural land owners. The Cooperative Agricultural Pest
Survey (CAP) Program is not a regulatory program, and data are provided
voluntarily by agricultural land owners/operators.

Section 1619 pertains not just to geospatial information in USDA databases, but
anything collected and held on the Agency’s behalf. For example, a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) needs to be in place between APHIS PPQ
and the state agricultural commissioner. MOUs are to be established on a state by
state basis in most states, although in California it is county by county.

Is there a definition of what constitutes cooperation be USDA and a ‘partner’? A
cooperative program or partnership is one where any individual (e.g., CAP survey
volunteers, person, federal, local, state, tribal government) accesses data from
agricultural land owners/operators.

International trade partners are not currently bound by Section 1619. Trade
partners can access data to the level of individual production operation. Legume
ipmPIPE and stakeholders have been sensitive to these issues and avoided any
such conflicts.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010

Kathy Handy emphasized that Section 1619 is not as easy as interpreting a linear
read of the text. 1619 is its own law and paragraphs within text refer to other
paragraphs. It is a complex law to interpret. It is separate from the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).

Section 1619 can and may affect different parts of the ipmPIPE geospatial
information access differently.

ipmPIPE SC discussion with Kathy Handy enlightened SC on Section 1619
language. The ipmPIPE data sharing policy seems to meet these requirements.
Matt Royer volunteered to forward questions from SC on ipmPIPE and Section
1619 to the Office of General Counsel. SC members should contact Matt Royer
with any questions.
2:15-2:30pm
9
Other existing ‘PIPE’ –like systems
Ed Rajotte describedfeatures of the Pennsylvania PIPE,
http://pa-pipe.zedxinc.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi
The PA PIPE was featured in the Winter 2010 Northeastern IPM Center Newsletter,
http://northeastipm.org/NewsAndReports/2010winter/Winter2010_index.html
Eileen Cullen described features of the PestWatch area wide monitoring system,
http://www.pestwatch.psu.edu/
Cullen updated SC on North Central US Extension Entomologist working group plans,
including eastern US states and Ontario, to use the PestWatch system in 2010 to map
Western Bean Cutworm pheromone trap catches in U.S. and Ontario, Canada. John
Tooker, Penn State University Entomology Dept., is coordinating addition of Western
Bean Cutworm map with PestWatch programmers at PSU.
2:30-3:00pm
Southern Corn Rust Component Update (2010)
Bob Kemerait, University of Georgia Plant Pathology, called in to provide the Southern
Corn Rust 2010 ipmPIPE update. This continues to be an important disease for growers,
consultants, researchers, and extension specialists. Some fungicide trials show yield
increase. This pathogen arrives in Georgia early enough in the growing season to be a
problem, and there are two strains of the Southern Corn Rust pathogen. The new race of
Southern Corn Rust is based solely on host plant reaction. Pioneer is aware of the issue.
Snook Pataky (IL) works with RPP9-gene in greenhouse studies and has confirmed it is a
different race.
Blaine Viator asked whether a field detection kit is available for races of SCR? Bob
replied there are 2-3 races. Some people are comfortable with field identification by
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
10
microscope, when sporulation is occurring. Molecular tests would be helpful. Bob is not
aware of any such kits to date. Microscopic identification in field is current standard.
Scott Isard’s spore trapping network includes Southern Corn Rust.
There is some investment in GA from the corn promotion board.
Sue Ratcliffe suggested an ipmPIPE logo be added to the Southern Corn Rust ipmPIPE
outreach materials and web materials. Bob agreed and Sue and Bob will work on this
together. Sue will send logo options to Bob.
Southern Corn Rust ipmPIPE field monitoring is coordinated around a basic set of
guidelines, but each state varies effort level based on resources (funds and time). Sentinel
plots have been planted for 2010, using 1 or 2 susceptible varieties. Field monitoring for
SCR are tied into Soybean Rust sentinel plot monitoring, which is well established. Some
standards need to be coordinated with regard to frequency of reporting periods on the
ipmPIPE map for SCR. Bob Kemerait will get in touch with those participating in the
SCR component to determine a standard protocol for how long a county will stay green
or red on the ipmPIPE map, thus avoiding false negatives that could lead to false sense of
security.
3:00-3:20pm
---BREAK---
3:20-5:00pm
ipmPIPE Sustainability Discussion, Part I – All
Discussion of sustainability issues for ipmPIPE to determine goals, parameters, and outcomes at
this meeting regarding future of the ipmPIPE and role of SC.
o Role of ipmPIPE SC in PIPE-like project proposals: competitive grant programs
generally, AFRI specifically.
o ipmPIPE SC capacity to evolve with changing funding environment. Discuss how
SC can function and adapt as future project funding is not administered through
ipmPIPE. SC membership composition also must adapt.
o More diversified structure has advantages as long at the ipmPIPE standards are
still in place and ipmPIPE serves a useful function as coordinating body.
(Cardwell): ipmPIPE umbrella concept for area-wide monitoring and forecasting of high
consequence pests could be approached through an e-Extension Community of Practice
(CoP) model.
(Rajotte): Increasing efforts are underway at the federal level to increase rural internet
facilities. This may keep ipmPIPE relevant to federal programs as it relates to agricultural
communities. This will still depend on local extension networks state programs and
regional pest problems.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
11
(Wisler): Other crop:pest combinations have potential for ipmPIPE. Orange rust of sugar
cane is new to FL, confined to FL thus far, and no host plant resistance available.
Fungicide as single tactic approach is a limited long-term solution due to pathogen
resistance. Where would sugar cane begin to approach the problem of area-wide
monitoring and forecasting? Follow the ipmPIPE southern corn rust model? Significant
funds are going to biofuels in the southeastern region for “energy cane” as biomass.
Section 18 fungicide labels are being approved to manage this rust problem in sugar cane
in FL currently. FL is the northern boundary of this rust movement.
(Cardwell/Wisler): Citrus greening virus is another potential fit for ipmPIPE (vectored by
Asian citrus Psyllid). FL is infested, TX continues to push back the infestation, CA
eradicates in pockets. Mexico is dealing with infestation. Effort is to keep insect vector
out of an area. This could involve international representation on the ipmPIPE SC in the
future if/as projects across state and country borders are added to ipmPIPE.
o Remainder of afternoon discussion emphasized that ipmPIPE cannot sustain
adding new projects unless funding is secured by new components. ipmPIPE SC
cannot expect federal funds to support maintenance of existing components. As a
coordinating group, ipmPIPE may add value to projects that have their own
funding, but the ipmPIPE SC is not in a position to select or advocate for any
particular set of new components on the ipmPIPE.
o There are currently several other PIPE-like venues for area-wide monitoring and
pest risk forecasting, ipmPIPE is not the only option that crop:pest component
stakeholders have.
Thursday: April 8, 2010
8:15-9:00am


Western region pest status updates
Status of Concept Note to RMA proposing a western specialty
crop ipmPIPE based at Oregon State University.
Frank Zalom presented updates on two insect pests of the Western region U.S., spotted
wing Drosophila, Drosophila suzukii, and light brown apple moth (Epiphyas
postvittana).
(Draper and Baker): No new information on status of concept note presented by NIFA to
Risk Management Agency. Concept note proposed a western specialty crop ipmPIPE
headquartered at Oregon State University to focus on spotted wing Drosophila and light
brown apple moth for three years.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
9:00-9:30am:
12
Cucurbit Downy Mildew Component Update (2010)
Peter Ojiambo and Wendy Britton, North Carolina State University, called in with CDM
component update.
See CDM ipmPIPE component 2010 update outline in the PowerPoint summary attached
[Appendix 1]. Additional information was discussed on impact indicators such as
fungicide sprays saved. Peter and Wendy are working to document impact using personal
interviews with Extension agents. They estimate $6 million saved by timely fungicide
application and/or avoiding un-necessary fungicide application. They are also attempting
to document outputs such as changes in knowledge and increased awareness of CDM
management by growers, Extension, consultants, and processors. Website hits are
steadily increasing 2005-2010.
(Ojiambo): Current focus is on long-term sustainability (funding) for CDM ipmPIPE
component. Communication plans with industry funding sources are being pursued, and
Peter is communicating with different cucurbit stakeholders.
(Cardwell): It is important that each Cucurbit group provide support to CDM ipmPIPE
not separately by crop, but in one collective voice to support any funding that component
leaders are applying for.
9:30-10:00am:
National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN) and State Plant
Regulatory Officer (SPRO) data sharing project ready to launch.
10:00-10:20am
----BREAK----
10:20-11:00am
ipmPIPE Sustainability Discussion
o US EPA interest in impacts of ipmPIPE program? This has been discussed
previously, but EPA has not been a part of the SC to date. Funding unlikely from
EPA. (Wisler)
o NRCS cannot implement IPM policy without decision support tools like
ipmPIPE. However, NRCS also not likely to provide funding to sustain ipmPIPE
(Smallwood).
(Cardwell): I am hearing two different approaches to sustainability: 1) federal agencies to
support infrastructure needs for ipmPIPE, IPM Centers, etc. and 2) industry coalition to
represent stakeholders by funding ipmPIPE components as appropriate.
(Rajotte): ipmPIPE could have a program policy statement, similar to one presented to
ESCOP IPM Committee, specifically supporting 406 funding for IPM Centers. No such
focused statement exists for ipmPIPE. Very clear statements, why does ipmPIPE exist?
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
13
Need to have regionally coordinated IPM Centers as anchors to efforts such as the
ipmPIPE. However, it is still the commodity groups, independent consultants, and
agricultural interests that can lobby for legislative support of IPM. Commodity groups are
not likely to rank ipmPIPE very high on their congressional visits. ipmPIPE needs to be
tied into the greater IPM message and overall delivery.
(Group): If ipmPIPE is going to continue to exist, SC and stakeholders must continue to
promote success stories. Is there a natural progression to this? What would be lost if
ipmPIPE goes away?
(Zalom): Historically, projects in the ‘70s (e.g. Huffaker project) focused on IPM
decision making support. Projects did the modeling (insect and disease forecasting tools)
to provide growers, consultants with this support. Is there an analogy here for ipmPIPE?
Preserve the coordination role of IPM Centers.
(Hershman): Other ipmPIPE-like venues are out there (e.g. IA PIPE, PSU’s PestWatch,
etc.) The value of a group like ipmPIPE with proven success such at Soybean Rust and
other components is that it provides an umbrella. Can ipmPIPE gain some kind of
authoritative standing? This could take an organizational form similar to a multi-state
group for soybean rust. All SBR research and programming goes primarily through a
multi-state.
(Cardwell, Coakley): You can develop a multi-state committee for a valid purpose. Not
hard to do.
(Ratcliffe): When people come together, funds are allocated, it is usually around a high
consequence pest or issue, possibly with human health implications. I am also hearing
from NRCS and EPA, that they need the cooperation of the IPM community to do their
jobs. IPM is sometimes swept under the rug, yet it is a leg of the table in sustainability.
IPM infrastructure is crumbling. There is a need for education at many different levels.
(Coakley): A nationally competitive grant RFA has gone out for AFRI. There are many
others, SCRI, etc. It would be presumptuous to assume that one particular grant can be
supported by ipmPIPE or be awarded because of ipmPIPE support. SC is not, and should
not, be in a position to advocate for one particular proposal.
Moreover, not everyone would know about ipmPIPE SC as a group in preparation of
AFRI proposals.
11:00-11:30am
Pecan PIPE Component Update
Marvin Harris, Texas A&M University, called in with Pecan ipmPIPE component update.
See Pecan ipmPIPE component 2010 update summary attached [Appendix 2], provided
by Marvin Harris.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
14
Additional information, and discussion included:
-Growers can enter their own data to activate pest status for their site on the pecan PIPE.
-Marty will contact Marvin separately re: APHIS PPQ data sharing issue.
-No errors (i.e., missed decision window) in the pecan PIPE decision supports to date.
-The October/November 2009 issue of Pecan South highlighted a survey of pecan
growers in the region on internet adoption for IPM decision making. The survey response
in TX has been overwhelmingly in favor of internet use for this purpose.
-The ipmPIPE SC commended Marvin for progress and success of the Pecan ipmPIPE.
-Marvin is organizing an ipmPIPE symposium for the Entomological Society of America
annual meeting, Dec. 12-15 in San Diego, CA. Jim VanKirk will present an overview;
Don Hershman will present on SBR ipmPIPE past, present and future; Howard Schwartz
will present on the Legume ipmPIPE, Marty Draper and/or Peter Ojiambo will present on
Cucurbit Downy Mildew ipmPIPE.
11:30 – 2:00pm:
ipmPIPE Sustainability Discussion Resumed for remainder of
afternoon session during working lunch (12-12:30 in meeting room).
SC discussed potential pragmatic steps to establishing an ipmPIPE coordinating committee.
Options discussed included the following:
o Multistate research project. The four region Ag Experiment Station directors fund
participant meeting travel/attendance. Multi-state committee are a nationally
coordinated effort. Multi-state committee status permits group to apply for
funding in 5-year project cycle increments. This type of activity involves
cooperative, jointly planned research employing multidisciplinary approaches.
(one of the four regions would need to sponsor).
o Multi-state research coordinating Committee (CC) and Education/Extension and
Research Activity (ERA) are other options under the USDA NIFA Multi-state
framework. Coordinating committees are set up for information exchange and
coordination/interaction, but participants are not usually funded for travel to
meetings. This is presently one of the most common mechanisms for functionally
integrated activities. (one of the four regions would need to sponsor).
o IPM Centers have paid for working group meetings addressing high consequence
pest monitoring and management. These are typically collaborations between land
grant university agricultural research/extension faculty (e.g., western bean
cutworm in the North Central Region).
o USDA NIFA AFRI grant program has planning grant and conference grant
categories. This could be a venue for ipmPIPE SC to obtain funding for IPM
coordinating committee oversight activities and logistical support. However, it is
not clear how a planning grant would lead to a larger ipmPIPE multi-investigator
grant proposal in the future.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
15
o State IPM programs (Extension IPM Coordination and Support Program, EIPMCS) encourage incorporation of PIPE-like pest monitoring efforts.
o Discussion came back to multi-state coordinating framework model as the most
appropriate potential model. The future of ipmPIPE is uncertain, and it is not clear
what role ipmPIPE SC will have the next five years. SC is trying to determine best
way to establish, sustain IPM coordinating role of ipmPIPE in the new funding
environment (more emphasis on competitive grants, less on federal support, and
possibly more reliance on commodity support).
o The time has passed for ipmPIPE to control or have authority over the process.
However, standards, success, and national coordination are all strengths that
ipmPIPE and SC bring to the table.
o If large SCRI, AFRI, or other competitive grant programs fund PIPE-like projects,
how will the ipmPIPE SC interface and support these efforts?
o If there are no such large awards that want to connect with the ipmPIPE, what will
the role of ipmPIPE be in the future?
o (Coakley): National Research Support Projects (NRSP) are another multi-state
group configuration to enable ipmPIPE SC to function as a flexible, responsive,
functional coordinating body. This type of activity focuses on the development of
enabling technologies, support activities (e.g. collect, assemble, store, and
distribute materials, resources and information), or research. NRSPs are eligible
for off-the-top funding. Composed of administrative advisors from each of four
regions, a NIFA representative, land grant scientists, others.
o (Ratcliffe, Royer, Viator, Others): We have two potential approaches to ipmPIPE
sustainability. One is to continue to try and obtain competitive funding, or federal
support around high consequence pests that generate enough attention and
government/industry support to fund ipmPIPE infrastructure. This may be too
narrow an approach. Compare and contrast this approach with the wider,
coordinating committee umbrella framework (e.g., multi-state research project,
CC, ERA or NRSP).
o (Coakley, Cardwell): Stella volunteered to contact Mike Harrington, Executive
Director, Western Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors,
about the idea of four regional directors creating a new NRSP for ipmPIPE. Kitty
Cardwell provided estimates on ipmPIPE infrastructure operating costs (data
quality managers, web portal, IT, communications, brochures, teleconference,
face-to-face meetings, etc). Approximately $50K from each of the four regions
(~$200K) would be adequate to fund an ipmPIPE NRSP. Stella will report back to
SC communication with Mike Harrington on the May ipmPIPE SC
teleconference.
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
16
Closing business:
ipmPIPE SC will hold a May teleconference, and then resume every other
month teleconference schedule.
2:00pm
------ADJOURNED------
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
[APPENDIX 1]
ipmPIPE Cucurbit Downy Mildew Component Update 2010
Peter Ojiambo and Wendy Britton, North Carolina State University
17
ipmPIPE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 2010
18
[APPENDIX 2]
Pecan ipmPIPE Component Update 2010 Marvin Harris, Texas A & M University
Policy for Pecan ipmPIPE has been to provide an overall deliverable that has a major impact on
interfacing with pecan producer stakeholders, but also is designed to be a resource for pecan
researchers and other pecan professionals, particularly with regard to being a focus for
translational applications of Information Technology that they already have in hand, or, more
likely, will have to adapt or develop to deliver in this medium.
Currently pursuing pecan researchers to conduct research that will result in deliverables that can
be best interfaced with other pecan stakeholders by using Pecan ipmPIPE. For example, some
research is needed on how to track pecan phenology and protocols need to be established on how
to do this Belt-Wide--given this information, deliverables on pests can be "specified" by using
the pecan phenology from a Producer Network as biofixes to better characterize Risk Windows
to aid decision-making based on degree-days rather than a general calendar. Similarly, tracking
of insect, pathogen and weed resistance to pesticides can be done in real time given appropriate
research information and protocols for producer network use. And so on. My major point here is
that this medium is interactive among stakeholders and amenable to both a Top-down platform
design/information flow and a Bottom-up interactive information flow that benefits from a
thorough approach to problem solving at all levels that seamlessly moves from inception to
resolution.
Progress Report:
We continue to update/upgrade the web site and an in-progress Users Guide is attached for your
reference/distribution, which contains some very general web user statistics as well.
We are on track to deliver real-time information on the PNC Decision Window in 2010, which
will also have upgraded features that improve the 2009 version (the latter will remain accessible
for reference as well).
I note that our deliverables continue expansion in several categories (Pesticide List with
Insecticide on-line is "completed"; Fungicide List completing development and expected on-line
soon; Library resources on-line for developers/reviewers, but significant provisioning and polish
yet to be done before full launch; PNC upgrade being polished and will be on-line in 2010
season, for example).
Developing new deliverables with pecan plant pathologists and pecan horticulturists in various
stages of progress that we expect to continue in development and/or pilot program status during
2010. Firm in-depth pecan IPM work with INIFAP and CIAD counterparts in Sonora, Mexico
continues, but not integrated as yet with Pecan ipmPIPE on-line (this is possible but would
require more formal interaction among agencies here and there and an authorized expansion of
Pecan ipmPIPE outside the US).
We are working with others on a Dec. 2010 Symposium at ESA discussing the PIPE paradigm
and related web products/approaches.
Funding efforts on various matters are also in progress