NRCS and IPM Working Together in the North Central Region:
Opportunities for Progress
Meeting Minutes -- November 16-17, 2006
St. Louis, Missouri

November 25, 2006
Comments, corrections to T. Green, ipmworks@ipminstitute.org

Participating: Bagdon, Bailey, Brewer, Dobesh, Epstein, Fitzner, Foster, Green, Grundler, Hazzard, Jasinski, Jensen, Jess, Kuenstler, Miller, Murphy, Neumann Landis, Pilcher, Stewart, Swanegan, Wright (full names, titles and affiliations in Appendix A, biographies in Appendix B)

I. Executive Summary
Professionals representing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) interests and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) from within the North Central Region and nationally discussed NRCS and USDA IPM missions, programs and opportunities for greater collaboration to meet mutual resource conservation goals.  Invited presenters from national, regional and state NRCS, Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, LGU and non-governmental organizations introduced these programs, successful collaborations, BMP CHALLENGE program, and recent private sector conservation initiatives by SYSCO and Wal*Mart.  Representatives from four working groups (North Central region fruit and vegetable, Northeastern Vegetable and Missouri school IPM) described the structure, function and benefits of their collaborations.  Participants identified and prioritized needs for research, education, and programs and policy to improve mutual efficiency in protecting natural resources.  Action steps were identified, including forming and pursuing funding for an ongoing working group to focus on enhancing collaboration within the region.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary -  page 1

II. Priorities - page 3

III. Work plan - page 3

IV. Agenda summary - page 5         

Appendix A. Participants and Affiliations - page 10
Appendix B. Participant Biographies - page 11
Appendix C. List of Priorities - page 15
Appendix D. List of North Central IPM Coordinators - page 18 

II. Top Priorities (complete list of priorities in Appendix C)
A. Education priorities:

1. Raise IPM on NRCS radar - continuing education modules for NRCS planners in IPM basics, how IPM meets resource conservation needs, and commodity-specific detail and; how TSPs can better meet NRCS needs re pest management plans; success stories (15)
2. Extension education about NRCS mission, programs, opportunities for grower clientele, how to engage NRCS effectively including using terms NRCS relates to (common language, see Mike Brewer’s slides for translating IPM concerns in to terms understood by NRCS); success stories; distinguishing NRCS policy, program, standards and levers for improving each (13)
3. Education for growers re NRCS program options, qualifications,  requirements and proper scouting procedures to meet requirements (12)

B. Policy/Program priorities:

1. More IPM Participation on state technical committees and sub-groups, e.g., EQIP subgroups, county workgroups (12)

2. More IPM input into next farm bill re NRCS programs (12)

3. Educate NRCS policy/program decision makers a national level about IPM (12)

C. Research priorities:

1. Measurement/evaluation of ecosystem health, functional ecology to move beyond soil/water resource emphasis; sustainability of practice adoption once incentives go away; practice adoption vs. permanent installation; soil and aquatic life as indicators and relationship to IPM (14)

2. Toxicity modeling, look at WinPST and other models for potential to create comprehensive tool, resolve conflicts among existing approaches, create a standard for selecting least hazardous options (13)

3. Identify high impact IPM issues/practices for field crops (10)

Back to top of web page

III. Work plan
A. Short term action items:

1. Launch “Grower Incentives for IPM” website with intro to project, meeting minutes and presentation, prepare to include response to pending NRDC report on NRCS resources re IPM. (Landis)

2. Create closed list serve with capacity to look at threads. (Landis)

3. Generate two success story articles, one on WI apple, one on MA, WI, MI trainings, use resource conservation and IPM language, demonstrate potential for IPM to impact NRCS resource concerns plus plant protection, agronomic and economic benefits; for posting on the project web site and publication in state IPM program and IPM Institute newsletters, CCA Advantage, J Soil and Water Conservation, PDF for Pat Murphy’s update list and for Pat to circulate to his counterparts in the region. (IPM Institute)

4. Draft Regional IPM grant proposal to develop and distribute fact sheet for Extension on how to engage NRCS effectively; include success story bullets, link IPM practices to NRCS resource concerns, how to help growers access NRCS incentives and tech assistance, state-by-state list of contacts, processes and schedules; enlist individual from each state to check on those details; include funds for multi-sate partners, travel for development meeting(s), production and distribution costs. (Brewer, Bailey, Stewart)

5. Draft grower education piece, angle “is it worth the paperwork in terms of monetary and resource benefits?”, using blueberries as example, translate NRCS practices into grower practices, include site-specific analysis in example, $ amounts available, resource concerns addressed. (Brewer to draft and circulate to group for comment)

6. Investigate/pursue SARE Professional Development Program funds to support NRCS participation in workgroup meetings. (IPM Institute)

7. Recruit participation from:
1. regional EPA (IPM Institute)
2. NRCS program manager (Joe, Bill, Pat, Tom and Mike to pursue)
3. NRCS regional. e.g.,  Cheryl Simmons (Bill Kuenstler)
4. Conservation district rep (IPM Institute)
5. Field level, e.g., crop advisor, county educator, district conservationist
6. Leading growers, e.g., growers who also lead associations
7. Fill reps from states without current representation (IL, ND, SD, MN)

8. Send meeting minutes to Ann Sorensen and Rich Bonanno re next Farm Bill, include NRDC contact info. (IPM Institute)

9. Post task force recommendations from ppt to website and update from national IPM measurement task force discussion on 11/15. (Brewer and Landis)

10. Brief Ed Rajotte on meeting, Northeastern Region developments. (Hazzard)

11. Schedule 2007 work group conference calls, meeting (IPM Institute)

B. Next meeting:

1. Presentations by growers, field level folks on barriers, successes, opportunities.

2. Include participation from Western and Southern Regions.

3. Share UW and WI NRCS cooperative agreement as a model for collaborating.

C. Longer term action items:

1. Evaluate NRCS training modules for staff and TSPs for opportunities to improve IPM basic (for all staff) and advanced (for tech staff) modules.

Back to top of web page

IV. Agenda Summary
Thursday, November 16
A. Welcome by Tom Green, IPM Institute and Mike Brewer, Michigan State University. After a short introduction to the project and working group concept, participants introduced themselves and explained their goals for attending the meeting.

B. Presentations (to be posted on website temporarily at http://ipm.msu.edu/work-group/home.html, permanent url to be announced)

The following presentation generated extended discussion including identification of needs to expand NRCS and IPM collaboration to address mutual resource concerns.

1. NRCS mission, organization and programs by Bill Kuenstler (view PowerPoint file), Joe Bagdon (view PowerPoint file), Pat Murphy (view PowerPoint file), USDA NRCS. The group gave a general overview including details on the voluntary programs EQIP and CSP and their ties to implementing IPM.  Important specifics to remember include:  
1. Policy requires that NRCS programs use land grant university recommendations for mitigation of impacts on threatened and endangered species, and ground and surface water.  Mitigation is then fundable through these NRCS programs.  
2. Each state has its own standard for pest management which can be more stringent than the federal standard, but not less stringent. 
3. Incentive payments for practices are based on the cost of practices; incentives for management, e.g., pest management are not based on cost but rather how much it takes for the producer to adopt the management system. 
4. Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units are underutilized cooperative agreement structures that can fund collaborations between NRCS and others, including Extension. See www.cesu.org.
5. EQIP is generally used for short-term (3-5 years) funding of resources concerns not already addressed. The Conservation Security Program is used for longer term (up to ten years) funding for enhancing mitigation for concerns already addressed, but only in select watersheds which rotate annually.
6. Farm Bill language will be drafted this winter with hearings in July.  Budget constraints may lead to contraction in NRCS programs. Conservation Reserve Program dollars could shift to other uses.  A white paper on Farm Bill conservation issues is located at http://www.usda.gov/documents/FarmBill07consenv.doc

2. USDA IPM Programs, Mike Fitzner, USDA IPM Program, (View PowerPoint file), and Lynnae Jess, USDA North Central Region IPM Center (View PowerPoint file). Mike and Lynnae described the structure of USDA IPM programs and grants including the roles of state IPM programs and regional IPM Centers. Mike noted that increased collaboration between land grant IPM Programs and NRCS on the state level is helping action to occur on the national level. The regional IPM Center oversees the work group structure. Work groups re-apply each year and can apply for additional grants sponsored by the Center.

3. Making progress in the Northeast: A report on December 2005 IPM/NRCS meeting in Harrisburg, PA, and ongoing NRCS-IPM collaborations in the region was presented by Ruth Hazzard, University of Massachusetts, and Joe Bagdon, USDA-NRCS including:(view Word file) (view Excel file)
1. Two new projects have been funded in the region to increase collaboration, one from Rhode Island NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant Program and one from USDA CSREES IPM Program.
2. Ruth advised finding the person most interested in IPM within each organization/agency/university and partnering with those people. 
3. Ruth shared the following feedback from an October 2006 meeting with NRCS professionals re IPM Guidelines use by NRCS and clients: 

1. NRCS staff use the IPM Guidelines at both the ‘front and the ‘back’ end in working with producer clients;
2. guidelines are not user friendly - technically complicated;
3. growers can’t fill out the worksheets by themselves;
4. growers don’t know how to identify pests or diseases;
5. growers don’t know about IPM, especially on small farms;
6. big farms with a consultant: consultant has no incentive to fill out the forms;
7. hard to get records – even from a consultant, because the grower has to give permission;
8. NRCS staff don’t know what the consultants are doing for scouting;
9. some growers produce small amounts of a variety of crops – have to fill out all the guideline sheets -- one for each crop.

4. Reducing pesticide risk one grower at a time: the Wisconsin eco-apple project was presented by Michelle Miller from the Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems at the University of Wisconsin (view PowerPoint file).  The grower-led eco-apple partnership was initiated in 2000 and currently involves thirty-seven growers and has documented a 58% reduction in pesticide risk as per a pesticide toxicity index developed for the project, and a 13% increase in IPM adoption according to surveys of grower practices.

5. Mike Brewer presented Partnership to Implement IPM as a Plant Protection and Resource Conservation Tool, Examples from the states: Michigan, including increases in NRCS incentives for IPM in apple and cherry systems, distribution of pest management funds by NRCS by state, and issues identified at a national meeting of NRCS and IPM professionals in October 2006. (view PowerPoint file)

6. Tom Green presented Emerging Private Sector Stewardship Efforts:
   Opportunities, Challenges, Progress and Plans and addressed new initiatives by SYSCO Corporation, a $31 billion food distributor, and Wal*Mart/Sam’s Club to improve internal and supplier stewardship.  He also discussed the BMP CHALLENGE (www.bmpchallenge.org) that guarantees corn rootworm, nutrient BMP and reduced tillage performance for corn producers.

C. Participant reports

1. Participants indicated generally low awareness among growers and Extension of availability of NRCS programs for IPM implementation.

D. Summary of current working groups in the region

1. Vegetable Working Group – Jim Jasinski

1. formed two years ago;
2. 150 informal members, North Central and Ontario, Extension specialists, consultants, commodity group representatives;
3. set annual priorities at annual meeting, usually identify 2-4 issues;
4. address through project committees, subset of annual meeting attendees;
5. major project was on-line crop and state-specific survey for growers, including pumpkins, others identified as important by states; continuing to collect data, will summarize in Fall 2007; final report in 2008; goal is identify what we’re doing well on re IPM practices, opportunities for improvements; on-line format kept budget manageable, now also collecting at grower meetings to increase response.
6. focus for 2007 will be IPM schools for scouts
7. state specialists are primary participants at annual meeting
8. website has project reports, annual meeting minutes
9. list serve is active and useful

2. Fruit Working Group – Dave Epstein

1. 2006 is first year, first meeting last week in NY
2. members are Extension, consultants
3. Great Lakes states and Ontario
4. Primary function is annual meeting to share information
5. Travel funds provided for participants
6. Developing regional priorities, combining those from member states/provinces
7. Recruiting additional states
8. Creating list serve, website
9. Creating abstract book from presentations at annual meeting
10. Will investigate measurement options, may use annual fruit expo to administer survey with drawing for incentive

3. Northeastern Region Vegetable Working Group

1. operating for 4-5 years
2. doing Pest Management Strategic Plan with additional funding
3. includes growers as well as Extension, new NRCS member
4. working to combine vegetable management pictorial guide
5. adding strawberries to mix
6. may fund individuals to go to conferences and report back, i.e., educator exchange program

4. Missouri School IPM Working Group

1. did initial survey to identify status
2. diverse membership
3. developed a basic training tool on what IPM is and how to get into it, reached a broad audience including school nurses, plant managers
4. connecting people to existing resources

D. Website Discussion

1. Title: Grower incentives for IPM, multiple target audiences

2. Target audience: IPM, NRCS, crop advisors
1. Goal is to communicate useful resources and working group activities to facilitate key influencers engaging with farmers on accessing NRCS technical assistance and incentives

3. Target Audience: Growers
1. Goal to drive growers to state-specific NRCS info
2. Success stories using existing materials from MI, WI, etc.
3. Link practices with problem and incentives available
4. Example plan
5. Generic version of twelve-slide presentation that Mike used
6. State-specific fact/status paragraphs with appropriate links that others send to Joy
7. Don’t create unrealistic expectations

4. Target Audience: Our working group:
1. current status, activities, resources, e.g., powerpoints from meetings, meeting notes
2. map of states with $$ to IPM with details what for

5. Options/Issues
1. blog format? Cascading style sheets, anyone can update their contributions
2. other options also allow editing privileges
3. short PDFs, easy to post and read
4. make sure info is not so specific that it gets out of date quickly
5. how do we want to measure outcomes of website
6. look at NE IPM Center webpages on NRCS collaborations

E. Discussion: What media do NRCS folks read?  How best to circulate education to reach NRCS audience

1. Each state offers updates through state agronomists or state resource conservationists, e.g., updates from Pat in WI

7. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation
8. National Association of Conservation Districts
9. Conservation Information Technology Center, has website and newsletter
10. CCA Advantage (300 NRCS staff nationwide are CCAs)
11. No regional vehicle
12. Add state agronomists on center newsletter list

APPENDIX A. Meeting Participants and Affiliations

APPENDIX B. Participant Biographies
Joe Bagdon, Pest Management Specialist, USDA-NRCS
In his current position, Bagdon is responsible for NRCS pest management related technology and technical policy.  Bagdon also provides nationwide pest management training.  He serves on several national interagency technical committees including the Federal IPM Coordinating Committee and the FIFRA Exposure Modeling Work Group.  His main focus is on reducing the environmental risks of pest management activities with sound resource conservation planning.

Wayne Bailey- IPM/PAT Coordinator, University of Missouri
Bailey coordinates the Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Applicator Training programs at the University of Missouri.  He also serves as an extension entomologist with statewide responsibilities for field and forage crop insects.   

Mike Brewer- Coordinator, MSU IPM Program
Brewer’s research background includes the assessment of pest and natural enemy interactions in agricultural landscapes and compatibility of multiple tactics in pest management systems. His extension interests focus on deployment of IPM tactics in plant-based agricultural industries. 

Sharon Dobesh- Pesticide and IPM Coordinator, Kansas State University
Dobesh works on pesticide applicator training and recertification, pesticide safety programs, the IPM mini-grants program.  She is a termite and structural pest specialist.  Dobesh has a BS in Crop Protection from the University of Nebraska and a MS in Entomology from Kansas State University.

David Epstein- Tree Fruit Specialist, Michigan State University IPM Program
Epstein helps to coordinate and manage multidisciplinary research projects in collaboration with key MSUE agents and specialists, MI Ag Experiment Station researchers, and industry in developing fruit ICM/IPM activities, prioritizing needs, conducting educational programs and training with specialists, agents, producers, consultants and scouts. Current research is focused on delivery of effective and economical biopesticide-based IPM to Michigan's tree fruit growers.

Mike Fitzner- Director, Plant Systems, USDA CSREES
Fitzner is director of the plant systems section at USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's (CSREES).  He provides coordination and oversight for the plant system section’s research and extension programs focused on the development of safe, environmentally friendly, and economically sustainable plant production and protection systems.  He provides program leadership for the Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers and other agency investments in integrated pest management research and extension programs.   Mike earned a B.S. in Horticulture from North Carolina State University, an M.S. in Agronomy (Plant Breeding) from the University of Florida, and a Ph.D. in Crop Science (Plant Breeding) from North Carolina State University.  Prior to joining CSREES, he was a plant breeder with the peanut breeding program at North Carolina State University. 

Rick Foster- Extension Entomologist and Professor, Purdue University
Dr. Foster served as Vegetable IPM Coordinator at Cornell University and as an Assistant Professor of Entomology at the Everglades Research and Education Center (University of Florida) at Belle Glade, FL before joining Purdue University in 1988. Dr. Foster has responsibilities for extension and applied research related to arthropod pests of fruits and vegetables. He is the author of numerous research and extension publications related to managing pests of fruits and vegetables and is co-editor of the book, Vegetable Insect Management. He also serves as Indiana’s Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator, Purdue University IPM Coordinator, and Assistant Extension Program Leader for Agriculture and Natural Resources. Dr. Foster has received the Eric G. Sharvelle Distinguished Extension Specialist Award and the Entomological Society of America Distinguished Achievement Award in Extension.

Tom Green- President, IPM Institute of North America
Green is president of the IPM Institute of North America, Inc., a non-profit organization he co-founded in 1998.  The Institute’s mission is to leverage marketplace power to improve health, environment and economics in agriculture and communities.  The Institute operates the IPM STAR program, evaluating and certifying schools nationwide for their pest management practices and impacting more than 2 million children since its inception in 2003.  In 2004 and 2005, the Institute was named a Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program Champion by US EPA.  Clients and funders have included US Army, US EPA, USDA, SYSCO Corporation, Whole Foods Market, General Mills and the Universities of Wisconsin, Florida, Cornell and Rutgers.  Dr. Green has been an apple grower, and founder and owner of an IPM supply business that is now part of GEMPLER’S.  He is a Certified Crop Advisor and holds a Ph.D. in entomology from the University of Massachusetts.

Judy Grundler-IPM Program Administrator, Plant Industries, Missouri Department of Agriculture
Grundler has a master’s degree in entomology with over twenty-five years of experience in the field.  Her current responsibilities include regulatory management of Missouri Boll Weevil Eradication Program, and oversight of the grant funded Hypoxia Education and Stewardship Program, and Integrated Pest Management in Missouri Schools.  Judy works with the cooperative state sustainable agriculture programs and is on the administrative council of North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.  Other projects have included cooperative biological control programs for the cereal leaf beetle and Japanese beetle in Missouri, development of the former MDA Organic Certification Program and the current state organic cost-share program. 

Ruth Hazzard- Extension educator, University of Massachusetts
Hazzard has worked on developing IPM systems in several vegetable crops, and currently has research/extension projects on flea beetles, striped cucumber beetles, beneficial wasps to control European corn borer, and perimeter trap cropping in brassicas and cucurbits. Ruth co-chairs the Northeast IPM Center's Vegetable IPM Working Group with Kathy Murray, and both are working with NRCS to further the implementation of IPM on vegetable farms.

Jim Jasinski- Extension Educator, Ohio State University IPM Program
From 1993 - 1999, Jasinski spent most of his time working in field crops evaluating soil insecticides, training farmers how to scout for pests, monitoring pest levels across the region, etc.  From 1995-1999, he was also involved in coordinating TOMCAST, a disease forecasting program for processing tomatoes across IN, MI, and OH. Since 1999, he has focused on cucurbit pest management, especially pumpkins.  Some of his recent projects include herbicide and fungicide evaluations, no-till direct seeding, use of cover crops, trap cropping, seed treatments, and precision application of insecticides.  Beginning in 2004, he has been serving as the project director for the Great Lakes Vegetable Working Group.

Bryan Jensen- Outreach Program Manager, IPM Program, University of Wisconsin
Jensen coordinates University of Wisconsin IPM educational activities which consist of student classroom training and adult education for professional crop consultants and growers.  Additionally, he cooperates with UWEX county extension staff with development and implementation of IPM activities. 

Lynnae Jess- Assistant Director, North Central IPM Center, Michigan State University
As part of her duties for the NC IPM Center, Jess administers the Working Group grants. Jess has also helped Mike Brewer at Michigan State University write grant proposals to obtain funding for NRCS/EQIP project analysis and enhancement in Michigan.

Bill Kuenstler- Conservation Agronomist, NRCS Central National Technology Support Center
Kuenstler is an agronomist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, on the staff of the Central National Technology Support Center in Fort Worth, TX.  He has been an agronomist with NRCS for 25 years, having worked in Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania and Colorado before coming to Fort Worth.  His primary responsibilities include assisting states in the Central Region with nutrient management, pest management and erosion prediction.

Joy Landis- Assistant IPM Coordinator/Communications Manager, Michigan State University
Landis will be developing the work group's website. She is interested in increasing farmers use of IPM and sustainable ag practices. It is her job as a communications manager to partner with others in developing publications, websites and other information tools that assist farmers and other pest managers.

Michelle M. Miller- Applied Anthropologist, Center for Integrated Agriculture Systems, University of Wisconsin
At the CIAS Miller works with growers on pesticide risk reduction. She has worked in the sustainable agriculture field on human organization and policy issues since 1980.  In 2006, her eco-apple project brought together 37 apple growers in four networks to apply IPM to their orchards.

Patrick Murphy- State Resource Conservationist, NRCS
Murphy oversees development and implementation of NRCS non-engineering practice
standards, interprets program and conservation planning policy, oversees technical
training of staff and carries out quality control activities.  He is a CCA and certified conservation planner. 

Carol Pilcher- IPM Coordinator, Iowa State University
I am a faculty member in the Department of Entomology.  In addition, I serve as the Interim Pesticide Applicator Coordinator and Integrated Pest Management Coordinator for Iowa.  My research and outreach efforts are focused on program evaluation, specifically the evaluation of IPM.  Currently, I am working with the North Central IPM Center to establish regional level impact evaluations.  I am also working at the national level to measure the environmental, economic and health impacts associated with the adoption of IPM.  I am very interested in learning how NRCS and IPM can work together to measure the impacts associated with the adoption of IPM on land enrolled in conservation programs.

Barb Stewart- State Agronomist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Stewart has worked for 27 years at the NRCS and is currently serving as State Agronomist.  In this role she provides technical assistance to Iowa NRCS staff in all aspects of agronomy including developing and/or revising Field Office Technical Guide standards which includes seeding recommendation on prairie and wetland reconstruction as well as nutrient, pest management and erosion prediction processes.  Stewart is a member of the Iowa Chapter of Soil & Water Conservation Society, Iowa Suffolk Sheep Association, serves on the USDA Credit Union Board and the Jasper County Extension Council.  She has been a Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) in Iowa since 1995.  

Odie Swanegan- IPM Specialist, USDA-NRCS
Swanegan began his career with the NRCS in 1971. He has served in several positions such as Soil Conservation Technican, Soil Conservationist, Resource Conservationist, and District Conservationist.  He works directly with conservation partners and NRCS field office staff in implementing pest management policy for the Conservation Security Program (CSP), and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP).  Swanegan has been a CCA since 1996.

Robert J. Wright- Professor of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Wright has extension and research responsibilities for field crop insect management.  He is also the UNL Field Crops Extension IPM Coordinator.  Much of his work has focused on corn and grain sorghum insect management, including biological control, insecticide resistance management, and efficacy of Bt corns.
Back to top of web page

APPENDIX C. Priorities Identified by Participants
1. Education Priorities
Top three (and votes received):

1. Raise IPM on NRCS radar - continuing education modules for NRCS planners in IPM basics, how IPM meets resource conservation needs, and commodity-specific detail and; how TSPs can better meet NRCS needs re pest management plans; success stories (15)
2. Extension education about NRCS mission, programs, opportunities for grower clientele, how to engage NRCS effectively including using terms NRCS relates to (common language, see Mike Brewer’s slides for translating IPM concerns in to terms understood by NRCS); success stories; distinguishing NRCS policy, program, standards and levers for improving each (13)
3. Education for growers re NRCS program options, qualifications,  requirements and proper scouting procedures to meet requirements (12)

Other priorities

1. Develop and circulate more information on where current NRCS pest management dollars are directed, e.g., IN is in the top ten states for these dollars but uses are currently unknown (3)
2. Develop best practices guide for including conservation approaches and practices in Extension publications, e.g., recommends, manuals (1)
3. Fact sheet on strategies to optimize IPM and pest management-related impacts on resources within current NRCS programs.
4. Develop fact sheet on vehicles for IPM/NRCS collaboration, e.g., Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units (CESUs), contracts, grant programs.
5. Increase awareness of organic transition options
6. Figure out how to channel resources to Extension for education, e.g., channeling dollars through state lead agencies might reduce overhead.
7. Secure funding for demonstration

2. Research Priorities
Top three (and votes received):

1. Measurement/evaluation of ecosystem health, functional ecology to move beyond soil/water resource emphasis; sustainability of practice adoption once incentives go away; practice adoption vs. permanent installation; soil and aquatic life as indicators and relationship to IPM (14)
2. Toxicity modeling, look at WinPST and other models for potential to create comprehensive tool, resolve conflicts among existing approaches, create a standard for selecting least hazardous options (13)
3. Identify high impact IPM issues/practices for field crops (10)

Other priorities:

1. Vegetable production systems that score well on Soil Conditioning Index so that growers can get CSP incentives (5)
2. Endangered species-specific research, big upcoming issue for some cropping systems (3)
3. What are already identified NRCS/ID gaps in IPM?  Are they really gaps and how do we repackage info to meet NRCS needs? (1)
4. How do management practices impact eco-system health (functional ecology)? (1)
5. What is best mix of investment in livestock, field crops, specialty crops to max economic/enviro/health and resource improvement returns? (1)
6. Comparative policy analysis state by state, what’s different, what works best. (0)

3. Program/Policy Priorities
Top three (and votes received):

1. More IPM Participation on state technical committees and sub-groups, e.g., EQIP subgroups, county workgroups (12)
2. More IPM input into next farm bill re NRCS programs (12)
3. Educate NRCS policy/program decision makers a national level about IPM (12)

Other priorities:

1. Evaluate NRCS performance on pest management issues. (5)
2. Change farm bill to reflect resource needs, e.g., is 60% of EQIP to livestock justified by resource need? (2)
3. Make pest management incentives available in every county nationwide. (1)
4. Longer term, permanent annual green payments. (0)
5. More IPM specialists in state/regional/national NRCS offices.
6. Move incentive dollars now used for pest management to address higher priority IPM needs.
7. Change name of Pest Management Standard to IPM Standard, IPM is the way we do pest management.
8. More vehicles to move NRCS resources to IPM-based opportunities to improve resources.

4. Additional Priority (Mike Brewer to communicate to National Task Force):

1. Widen technical assistance funnel to producers, e.g., NRCS staff are stretched thin with additional responsibilities and budget since 2002 Farm Bill; Extension and other resources could be brought to bear to increase technical assistance available to producers.
   

Back to top of web page

APPENDIX D. North Central Region IPM Coordinators