<p>Goals, first: To sustain and increase IPM adoption in crops, horticulture and schools to address current crises and needs, and as a means of a) increasing economic sustainability, food safety and quality and b) minimizing ecological and human health impacts of IPM practices. Second, to develop and deploy an outcomes-based, participatory extension education program, tuned to different scales and types of farming and to the needs of school districts, that engages farmers, agricultural professionals, school district-based, and institutional stakeholders. Third, to bring to bear a suite of enabling technologies co-developed with partners and stakeholders, that maximize leverage afforded by the E-IPM program and which contribute to IPM decision-making and to IPM program evaluation. Fourth, to coordinate agencies and other stakeholders to enhance program impact in education and IPM adoption, and critically examine how individual components and field-scale understanding can be scaled up to the farm and watershed and fifth, to directly address the goals of the National Roadmap for IPM and deliver quantified progress towards key roadmap goals of reducing the economic, environmental and health risks associated with pests and pest management practices. </p>
<p>Horticultural Crops: 3, annual education program plans and outcomes statements from stakeholders; at least six PMSP updates; at least 9 IPM PAMS guidelines; PRiME tool adapted for use in Oregon commodities; Agronomic Crops: 3, annual education program plans and outcomes statements from stakeholders; at least one PMSP update; at least 2 IPM PAMS guidelines; PRiME tool adapted for use in Oregon crops; </p>
<p>IPM in Schools: four educational pamphlets targeted at teachers, custodians, and other school staff, on specific pest problems and pest-conducive conditions; two model IPM plans for use in schools as required by SB 637; district-specific IPM plans for all pilot project districts; at least twelve completed training events for school staff and pest management professionals; at least two presentations at professional association events.</p>
<p>NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY:<br/> This Coordination E-IPM proposal for Oregon pursues IPM advancement in agronomic and specialty crops and in schools. The Oregon IPM program will collaborate with the California and Arizona IPM programs to share and refine pesticide risk assessment tools, approaches to participatory IPM extension, and new methodologies for pest risk mapping, landscape-scale analysis and crop loss assessment. We will adapt a pesticide risk assessment tool (PRiME) for use by Oregon farmers. Specialty and agronomic crop education programs will be designed by stakeholders including farmers, their advisors and agency representatives, and the program will use advanced evaluation methods to determine the degree of learning at events and adoption of practices in the six months following them. Field based classes will advance ecological literacy, assessment and management
skills among farmers and advisors and help to enhance natural enemy and pollinator populations. We will also develop and distribute new IPM guidelines that support these practices and which enable effective IPM decision making. The School IPM program will bring IPM concepts and practices to Oregon school districts as now mandated by law, and alleviate exposure of school children to allergens and toxins.
<p>APPROACH:<br/> Specialty and agronomic crop IPM: A formally structured course and participatory field-based event program that implements an outcome-based process that is planned each year. Three formally structured whole day courses will take place annually in the Yamhill and Pudding watersheds, each providing pesticide license recertification credits and consultant continuing education credits. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will conduct and report the results of surface water monitoring on an annual basis in each watershed, to help focus on water quality. We will conduct three field-based farmscaping for beneficials (FSB) events each year, for combined participation from the two watersheds, which adjoin each other. The FSB program supports conservation biological control and pollinator management by farmers. At one event each year we will be joined by
IPM coordinators from California and Arizona, to share methodologies and approaches to farm-based, participatory education programs that protect, conserve and enhance beneficial insect populations. We use multiple tools to collect evaluation data, including surveys and interviews. At workshops we use a retrospective pretest to determine the amount of change in learning during the event. At selected events we will also use a one-group pretest-posttest design to measure actual change in skills. We will bring to bear a suite of enabling technologies that maximize leverage afforded by the E-IPM program and which contribute to IPM decision-making and to IPM program evaluation: we will develop updated state-wide IPM guidelines in years 1-3 for a number of commodities. We will adapt the PRiME tool for Oregon: We are jointly working with the IPM Institute and other collaborators to develop a
pesticide health and environmental impact assessment tool (PRiME), the pesticide risk mitigation engine (NRCS, CIG program). IPM in Schools: 1. Completion of two existing pilots (began before grant period begins), and three new pilots. Each school IPM pilot project runs from 18 to 24 months, depending on a range of factors including pest pressure, pilot school size, and administrative support. 2. Technical training of at least 10 Pest Management Professionals (pest control company employees) who contract with schools for pest management. 3. Technical training of at least 30 custodians on principals of IPM, requirements of SB 637, pest complaint and pest reporting protocol, pest monitoring, and IPM for common pests such as rodents. 4. Training for at least 140 teachers on causes of pests, principals of IPM, and their roles in IPM as part of the pilot projects. 5. Presentations to at least
2 professional associations on principals of school IPM. 6. At least six coalition meetings (two per year). 7. During final year of grant, a second statewide survey of all 197 districts on pest problems. 8. During fourth quarter of the final year, an evaluation/assessment of the data collected at the beginning of the pilot projects and collected again during the last year of the grant
<p>PROGRESS: 2011/09 TO 2012/08<br/>OUTPUTS: The specialty crop and agronomic crop extension elements of this award were integrated to enable joint outreach and training events for farmers that grow commodities falling within both of these classifications. In the 2011 to 2012 award period, we conducted three types of education event: pesticide risk assessment and mitigation events, IPM planning events and school IPM events. Risk assessment education employed the new web-based tool PRiME, and was conducted jointly with 3rd party certification organizations Food Alliance and Salmon Safe and the processor, NORPAC. Growers submitted spray records that were anonymized prior to reporting. The sessions consisted of a review of risk assessment procedures and then a live display of PRiME analysis and results, including risks to birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, mammals,
earthworms and bystanders. Alternatives to high-risk pesticides and risk mitigation practices were tuned the relevant crop context. Five grower events focused separately upon pesticide risks in vegetables (green beans, sweet corn), small grains (teff, barley, spelt), apples, hops and wine grapes, the results of which were reported at the International IPM Symposium. New IPM guidelines were developed or revised for hazelnuts, Christmas tree, onions, blueberries, cole crops, sweet corn, and to address slugs and weed management in field crops. These were reviewed and presented to growers and advisors for 603 farms including fruit and nuts (11,000 acres), grains (31,000 acres), field crops (80,000 acres), vegetables (18,000 acres), hops (2,000 acres), blueberries (240 acres) and Christmas trees (200 acres). The IPM in Schools program conducted 14 events to school district IPM coordinators
and to local IPM coalitions training 67 coordinators in school districts that educate 195,000 students. PARTICIPANTS: The E-IPM program is attracting very significant support from key stakeholders in Oregon. Our goal is to implement widespread use of the PAMS model for IPM, a key element of the National Roadmap for IPM. This includes use of an IPPC-developed template for IPM planning by extension faculty, consultants, farmers and certification organizations. Key adopters of this system in 2011 and 2012 are the 3rd party certifiers Food Alliance and Salmon Safe, and the vegetable processor NORPAC. We have also initiated a PAMS IPM education program with WILCO, a major supply cooperative in Oregon. Participation by school districts in School IPM in Oregon is mandated by a state law, based upon a white paper originally developed by IPPC. Food Alliance is one of the most respected
agriculture certification programs in the United States. It is headquartered in Oregon and has almost 30 years experience serving farmers throughout the Pacific Northwest. Food Alliance currently has 124 certified farmer partners in Oregon raising fruit, vegetable and grain crops (representing 143,937 total acres). Nationally, Food Alliance represents close to 400 certified farmers and ranchers managing 6.5 million acres. Salmon-Safe was founded by the Pacific Rivers Council in 1995, and became an independent nonprofit organization in 2001. Salmon-Safe standards focus on key areas of habitat vulnerability most critical to protection of water quality and the survival of native fish. Salmon Safe has certified more than 350 land managers representing about 65,000 acres in Oregon, Washington, and California. NORPAC is a nationally recognized farmer cooperative and processor of fruits and
vegetables, with 240 farmer members that farm 45,000 acres and produce in excess of 600 million pounds of product annually. Wilco has 17 agronomists that provide IPM advice to more than 500 farmer clients and Peerbolt is a highly respected crop consultant specializing in small fruit, who also produces the main small fruit industry crop management newsletter. WILCO, as a major supply cooperative has to date provided educational access to 18 field staff who conduct scouting and make pesticide sales recommendations. TARGET AUDIENCES: We report above, our new engagement with Food Alliance, Salmon Safe, NORPAC and Wilco. and their participating growers have dominated our farmer events in 2011 and 2012. We conduct a large number (~20) short (~1h) IPM presentations as part of fall and winter pesticide applicator recertification and IPM education events, but we have reported here outputs and
outcomes associated with the core events associated with our E-IPM program. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
<p>PROGRESS: 2010/09/01 TO 2011/08/31<br/>OUTPUTS: We focused our program in two agricultural watersheds within the Willamette Valley: the Pudding and Yamhill watersheds. The project offered two sets of paired workshops to provide locally-relevant IPM education opportunities in both watersheds. One purpose of having the two events by crop groupings is that it allows for more a more interactive approach for pest management planning efforts among farmers, extension faculty, and agency personnel The two crop groups were 1) berries, vegetables (corn, beans and cole crops) and hops, and 2) hazelnuts, grass seed and wheat. The outcomes for these Maximizing Biological Pest Suppression and Minimizing Pesticides Risks as Components of Your IPM Plan events were: 1) learning how to develop and implement management plans for natural enemies on your farm, 2) staying in touch with
water quality and pesticide regulatory issues that affect your watershed and your IPM options for specific crops and 3) knowing the latest updates on the key pests, diseases and weeds that affect your production. The berries, vegetables and hops focused programs included a session on the Spotted Wing Drosophila update by one the SCRI project principal investigators; the hazelnuts, grass seed and wheat sessions had a Pesticide Risk Mitigation Engine (PRiME) demonstration. The workshop was promoted thought emails to the WSSIPM email list (100 contacts) and the IPPC listserve. For the Pudding Watershed workshop postcards were direct mailed to 1,500 selected Marion County pesticide applicator licensee holders and Zollner Creek residents. Over 400 Willamette Valley hazelnut growers were sent postcards as were 366 field crop growers in Yamhill, Polk and Washington counties. Total attendance at
these four October and November 2010 workshops was 117. The first pair of workshops addressed berries, hops and vegetable crops with 11 attendees at the Yamhill location and 24 at the Pudding. The latter two workshops focused on hazelnuts, wheat and grass seed had 42 participants at the Yamhill location and 40 at the Pudding. These events offered Oregon Department of Agriculture pesticide applicator recertification credits. The program has been able to attract a wide array of participants, however we have been unable to get consistent attendance from individuals. In February 2011, a new type of event was held to provide advanced level education to ten private consultants and field reps (sell inputs to those they advise). Our hope with this approach is to create a group of high leverage, "super users" for the IPM decision-making tools the IPPC offers. The topics covered in this three-hour
session included the use and set up for virtual weather stations and grass seed stem rust model analysis. This group of ten consultants and input suppliers reported that they and their staff provide advice for over 200,000 acres and they themselves directly work with over 200 growers. We plan to expand the group of invited consultants and fields reps this year. We also established a comprehensive state-wide school IPM program, and have pilot projects ongoing in two school districts and a model IPM plan in draft. PARTICIPANTS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.