The PESP Strategy process uses a goal-oriented approach to keep all participants -Partners, Supporters and EPA - focused on the goal of pesticide risk reduction. YourStrategy is intended to serve the following purposes: to encourage you to think about risk reduction in a

consistent, goal-oriented way; to elicit from you information that measures your progress toward risk reduction; to keep usfocused on helping you achieve risk reduction goals; and to achieve these purposes with minimal burden.

This guidance is intended to assist you in preparing your Strategy. e encourage you to work with your Liaison as youprepare your Strategy. Strategies from previous years are also available through www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP.

Each Strategy consists of four major sections: Strategic Approach, Activities, Progress, and Background Document. TheActivities and Progress sections are required annually. The Strategic Approach and Background Document should be revisitedoccasionally to determine if updates would be useful.

PPPPPESTICIDEESTICIDEESTICIDEESTICIDEESTICIDE E E E E ENVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTNVIRONMENTALALALALAL S S S S STEWARDSHIPTEWARDSHIPTEWARDSHIPTEWARDSHIPTEWARDSHIP P P P P PROGRAMROGRAMROGRAMROGRAMROGRAM

2004 S2004 S2004 S2004 S2004 STRATRATRATRATRATEGYTEGYTEGYTEGYTEGY G G G G GUIDUIDUIDUIDUIDANCEANCEANCEANCEANCE

SSSSSTRATRATRATRATRATEGICTEGICTEGICTEGICTEGIC A A A A APPROPPROPPROPPROPPROAAAAACHCHCHCHCH

By joining PESP, your organizationhas committed to working towardpesticide risk reduction. To achieve thislong-term goal, we are asking yourorganization to develop a StrategicApproach.

Your Strategic Approach should be abrief statement of how your organizationwill be pursuing the risk reduction goal.We hope that by thinking about aStrategic Approach, your organizationwill find a guiding principle that will helpfocus your risk reduction activities overthe coming years. Please refer to page 7for helpful information regarding guidingprinciples by PESP Sector.

We do not expect that your Strate-gic Approach will change every year,since it is long-term. It is important thatyou reassess your Strategic Approach tobe sure that it still fits yourorganization’s situation.

BBBBBAAAAACKCKCKCKCKGROUNDGROUNDGROUNDGROUNDGROUND D D D D DOCUMENTOCUMENTOCUMENTOCUMENTOCUMENT

We encourage you to prepare andsubmit a Background Document inaddition to your Strategy.

Several members have taken theopportunity to submit this document thatprovides EPA with background informa-tion about their industry, pesticide usepractices and issues, and organization.

This document will serve primarilyan educational function for your Liaisonand EPA, giving us information that willallow us to understand your situationsand better serve you. EPA will review thebackground document and make itavailable through the PESP Web site.

Your background document maytake any form, including submission ofexisting materials.

PPPPPROGRESSROGRESSROGRESSROGRESSROGRESS

This portion of your Strategy givesyou the opportunity to report on theprogress you made on your 2003activities.

For each of the activities describedin your 2003 Strategy, provide a briefassessment of the progress madeachieving them.

Please describe your progress interms of the measurement scheme youpreviously described for that activity.Quantifiable information will permit abetter assessment of the accomplish-ment and risk reduction.

SUBMITTING YOUR STRATEGYA blank Strategy form is enclosed for your use or

reference. trategy submission through the PESPwebsite is encouraged:

• www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP and click onStrategies

• Methodsof Submission.

• trategy and Progress forms must eitherbe submitted electronically or postmarked byFebruary 27, 2004.

In the Activities section, list theefforts that your organization will makein the coming year to reduce pesticiderisk. reduce pesticide risk are as diverse asour members. Activities should be in linewith your organization’s StrategicApproach. trate-gic Approach is to implement IPM, oneof your activities could be to educateyour growers on a specific IPM tech-nique.

We ask that you list only thoseactivities that can be achieved in thenext year. For longer-term projects, theactivity that you put down may only be asingle phase of a multi-phase activity.You may tell us about any activity thatyou are pursuing that you think willreduce pesticide risk.

In addition to describing the activity,we also ask that you indicate how thisactivity is intended to reduce pesticiderisk. While the expected impacts ofsome projects may be obvious, otherprojects may impact risk in more subtleor distant ways.

Finally, we ask that you tell us howyou will measure the success of youractivities. Ideally, you will beable to measure the actualreduction in risk that occursas a result of your activities.In practice, this may be verydifficult.

In the following pages ofthis guidance, we present anoverview of measures thatwe hope will assist you indeveloping your 2004Activities.

AAAAACTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIES

W

S

Go to

Choose the most convenient route under the

Completed S

The types of activities that could

For example, if your S

MMMMMEASURINGEASURINGEASURINGEASURINGEASURING & R & R & R & R & REPOREPOREPOREPOREPORTINGTINGTINGTINGTING E E E E ENDNDNDNDND O O O O OUTUTUTUTUTCOMESCOMESCOMESCOMESCOMESAll outcomes are important in that they help construct a causal chain, each link having a role in achieving environmental

results. , End Outcomes are the most important - the keys to achieving environmental stewardship by which PESP’ssuccess will be evaluated.

While EPA and PESP members have, thus far, been effective in measuring and reporting Administrative Outputs and Inter-mediate Outcomes, it is apparent that measuring End Outcomes has been more difficult. Several PESP members have beensuccessful in measuring and reporting end outcomes using environmental indicators.

Environmental indicators are critical for understanding the dynamic state of the natural environment. tors form the sound bases for decision-making on a host of environmental issues including how limited resources should best beallocated and applied.

PESP’s goal is to help more of our members identify and utilize environmental indicators to measure end outcomes of theirenvironmental stewardship activities. It is often said, “one size does not fit all.” align with the capabilities, resources, and interests of PESP Partners and Supporters. ein PESP, it is common sense to look toward effective end outcomes and environmental indicators that have been “field tested,”so to speak.

Page 2

HOW DOES EPA MEASURE PESP ACTIVITIES?EPA uses three types of outputs or outcomes to measure the success of PESP:

ADMINISTRATIVE OUTPUTStrack and measure administrative actions taken by PESP that either require or stimulate responses by its members. example, PESP tracks requests for proposals for PESP-related grants, the number of members and others who receive grantfunding, the number of grant projects, and the amount of funds provided to each grantee for environmental stewardship projects.

It also tracks the number of Partners and Supporters and the number of complete strategies prepared by members andapproved by PESP.

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMEStrack and measure actions taken by Partners and Supporters in response to PESP's or their own Administrative Outputs.

For example, members prepare strategies that commit themselves to specific programs to prevent pollution, reduce pesti-cide risks, and achieve environmental stewardship. advance solutions for safer pest management.

Partners and Supporters track the numbers of their members or customers that participate in the development and imple-mentation of their strategies, attend its training sessions, receive their fact sheets, agree to cooperate and abide by negotiatedenvironmental principals, and complete requirements for certification. These intermediate outcomes establish the means bywhich end outcomes may be realized.

END OUTCOMESand environmental indicators help track and measure actual environmental results that fulfill PESP’s and Partners’ and Support-ers’ goals for environmental stewardship.

Quantifiable reductions of risky pesticides entering the environment and reductions in pesticide residues in foods are ex-amples of End Outcomes.

Reductions in the number of people or animals poisoned by pesticides, reductions in the concentration of pesticides inwater, improvements in wildlife habitat, increases in beneficial insects and indicator species are all examples of positive environ-mental indicators.

W W W W WHYHYHYHYHY D D D D DOESOESOESOESOES EP EP EP EP EPA NA NA NA NA NEEDEEDEEDEEDEED TTTTTOOOOO M M M M MEASUREEASUREEASUREEASUREEASURE PESP A PESP A PESP A PESP A PESP ACTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIES?????

At EPA, it is important that we measure PESP activities for a number of reasons. EPA uses this information to documentour compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and in preparing EPA’s State of the Environmentreport. , is used to inform the Agency’s management and the public of PESP's progress. inselecting Partners and Supporters for EPA’s recognition awards for environmental stewards.

MMMMMEASURINGEASURINGEASURINGEASURINGEASURING A A A A ACTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIESCTIVITIES

However

Environmental indica-

How and what we measure in PESP needs toTherefore, to achieve higher performanc

For

They commit funds and conduct research and demonstration projects that

Further It will also be a major factor

EPA’s review of the PESP Strategies recognized that certain Partners and Supporters have made significant progress in themeasurement of their End Outcomes and environmental indicators.

Although the complexities of measuring pollution prevention, pesticide risk reduction, and environmental stewardship remaindifficult, a growing confidence is emerging among Partners and Supporters that manageable and practical tools are available thatdemonstrate significant environmental End Outcomes.

These Champion members demonstrate focus and drive toward reducing reliance upon more risky classes of pesticides,preventing or reducing release and exposure. planning, information and technology transfer, consensus building, and, most of all, commitment to practical and economicalsolutions that reduce pesticide risks while maintaining or improving economic competitiveness.

Examples of how some PESP Champions used Administrative Outputs, Intermediate Outcomes, and most importantly, EndOutcomes to measure the success of their programs follow:

Page 3

Intermediate Outcomes....•

to determine the level of IPM adop-tion.

End Outcomes....•

to pre-IPM years as a measure ofpesticide risk reduction.

MONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY

SCHOOL CORPORATIONcontinues to use its IPM program toreduce pesticide risks in schools and onschool grounds.

GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANYreduces pesticide risks by setting thehigh goal of the elimination of all detect-able pesticide residues in its products.The goal is to be achieved by reducingor eliminating pesticide applications byadopting IPM methods and targetinghigher risk chemical classes for elimina-tion from its pest management toolbox.

Gerber employs strategic planningand do-not-use lists of pesticides withits growers.

End Outcomes....• are measured through the electronic

collection and analysis of all sprayhistories to monitor and assurepesticide use and applicationreductions are quantified and sup-portive of its goal.

• The environmental indicator is pesti-cide residues with the goal being nodetectable residues.

• Gerber is experimenting with atoxicity rating program for comparingorganic and typical spray programs.

AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL

ASSOCIATIONadvocates environmentally sound,source reduction techniques andbiologically-based pest managementpractices including the use of reduced-risk larvicides.

AMCA also supports research onreduced risk mosquito managementtactics, and leads a national initiative forthe continued education and training ofmosquito control industry employees inproper chemical application techniquesand safety procedures.

Administrative Outcomes....• number of workers trained in formal-

ized programs;• number of workers receiving Public

Health Pest Control certificationstatus; and

• number of people receiving mosquitocontrol information via educationalprograms and the media.

Intermediate Outcomes....• quantitative measures of progress in

aerial spray program objectivesrelating to calibration of aircraft andground spray booms, and optimizingdroplet size/larvicide efficacy correla-tions; documenting implementationof newest proven spray optimizationtechnologies.

WALNUT MARKETING BOARDevaluates economic and effective,reduced-risk alternatives, such asbiopesticides, disrupting the codlingmoth's life cycle, and encouragingcodling moth predators. They alsoevaluate means of controlling walnutblight and nematodes and their resis-tance to pesticides.

Through the Walnut Pest Manage-ment Alliance, the industry monitorssurface and ground water contamination,pesticide migration, and the use ofpheromones. term goal of a 75% reduction in the useof organophosphate and pyrethroidinsecticides to control codling moth.

End Outcomes....• reductions in the amount of organo-

phosphate and pyrethroid insecti-cides applied to walnuts to controlthe codling moth

ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIAsponsors research on almond varieties,crop management practices, and pestmanagement. Specific interests includereplacements for methyl bromide, use ofleguminous cover crops for nitrogenfixing, IPM to control mite pests ofpollinating bees, pheromone matingdisruption, and ant and nematodecontrol projects.

End Outcomes....• reductions in pesticide use, as

measured in pounds; and• levels of pesticides in run-off from

different almond treatments

PESP CPESP CPESP CPESP CPESP CHAMPIONHAMPIONHAMPIONHAMPIONHAMPION I I I I INDICANDICANDICANDICANDICATTTTTORSORSORSORSORS

They demonstrate excellence in conceiving ideas, goals, models, strategic

are measured by surveying schools

track pesticide usage and compare it

The industry has a long-

Page 4

AUDUBON INTERNATIONALis dedicated to improving the quality oflife and the environment through educa-tion, research, and conservation assis-tance. Audubon International is implementingIPM strategies and cultural practicesthat reduce pesticide use, encouragethe use of lower risk pesticides, educateusers on chemical safety, and provideoutreach and education.

Intermediate Outcomes....• number of copies disseminated to golf

course superintendents of A Guideto Environmental Stewardship on theGolf Course, a guidebook of environ-mentally responsible practices;

• new partners enrolled in Audubon’sCooperative Sanctuary Program;

• number of packets, fact sheets, andnewsletters on IPM provided tomembers, as well as Web site hitson its IPM pages.

End Outcomes....•

transition to reduced-risk pesticides,and adoption of cultural controlmethods that decrease the need forchemical control.

PEBBLE BEACH COMPANYincorporates pesticide environmentalstewardship into all aspects of golfcourse, resort, and residential manage-ment.

Their activities include: monitoringpesticides and fertilizers in stormwaterrunoff ; installation of wash/rinse/mix/load treatment systems to reduce thepotential for ground water contamination;funding research on Monterey pine trees’resistance to pitch canker disease; andproviding all new residents and renterswith fact sheets on household andgarden pest control using an IPMapproach.

IntermediateOutcomes....• research dollars spent on strategies

to control pitch canker• number of fact sheets distributed to

new residents/renters on householdand garden pest control using anIPM approach

End Outcomes....• amount of pesticides and fertilizers in

samples of storm water runoff

End Outcomes....• are measured using a herbicide

application reporting system tocapture volumes of herbicidesapplied to total acreage, poundsapplied per acre, and comparisons toprior years and reporting cycles.

• ment Plan, it surveys habitats inrights-of-ways to identify environmen-tal indicators such as vegetativecover and wildlife species, creating adatabase to monitor impact of IVMon diversity and wildlife in compari-son to mechanical mowing methods.

NORTHEAST UTILITIESutilizes integrated vegetation manage-ment (IVM) trees and invasive shrub species in itsutility rights-of-way while encouraginglow-growing vegetated plant communi-ties and improving species biodiversityand wildlife habitat.

It seeks to reduce the application ofherbicide on a pounds per acre basisthrough improved technology andvegetation cover in rights-of-way thatemerges from application of its WildlifeHabitat Management Plan and IVM.

GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA(GCSAA) provides education andinformation to its members that enablethem to effectively utilize pesticides asone tool in IPM programs for golf coursemaintenance.

End Outcomes...are measured annually using the

Performance Measurement Surveywhich collects data on the types andamounts of pesticides applied to golfcourses and is used to track usagepatterns year to year.

LODI-WOODBRIDGE WINEGRAPE

COMMISSIONseeks to achieve pesticide risk reductionand sustainable practices in itswinegrape growing. all of its growers in an integrated farmingprogram (IFP). plans for their vineyards that draw uponself-assessments using the workbookand workshops.

End Outcomes....are measured using a three-fold

system:•

growers to assess their progress inachieving IFP adoption;

• pesticides of concern; and

• address levels of IFP adoption andgrowers' attitudes of IFP.

End Outcomes....• are measured by the reduction of

pesticide use on a total per customerbasis and an annual total basis forthe company.

• accomplished by tracking purchasesof pesticide and non-pesticidalproducts (caulk, screen, monitortraps, etc.), and calculating theexpenditure rates for each customerand amount of materials applied.

• compares these records with previousyears to monitor reductions inpesticide risks by transitioningtoward IPM solutions that reducepesticide use.

MASSEY SERVICES, INC.utilizes the safest, most effectiveprevention procedures and materialsavailable in managing pests five choice IPM model. to use only pesticides that are inToxicity Category Caution and, amongthose, prefers to use only highly specificbait formulations that eliminate toxicityand exposure to non-targets.

Through its certification program,

are reductions in pesticide use,

through its Wildlife Habitat Manage-

to selectively reduce target

Its goal is to enroll

Growers develop action

continuous self-assessment by

monitor pesticide usage data for

periodic surveys of growers that

as part of aMassey seeks

While PESP has reasonably goodAdministrative Outputs and IntermediateOutcome indicators and measures, itsweakness is identifying and measuringEnd Outcomes and environmentalindicators.

As indicated by the experience ofour PESP Champions, End Outcomeand environmentalindicators can includethe decreased releaseof high-risk pesticides,increased populationsof beneficial insects,decreased pesticideresidues in foods,decreased bird or fishmortality related topesticide poisoning,decreased poisoningincidents among farm workers, de-creased pesticide contamination ofdrinking water,

Or described positively, End Out-comes can include: habitat, increased populations of indig-enous species, increased nesting pairsof birds, improved compliance withcertain standards (e.g., pesticidetolerances, water quality standards)improved soils, etc.

For PESP, adopting indicators thatmeasure End Outcomes in the environ-ment is the ultimate goal. practical standpoint, PESP memberscan aspire to gradually shift theiremphasis from administrative andintermediate to a mix of indicators thatresult in measurable environmental endoutcomes.

The Champions by and largemeasure pesticide risk reduction byadopting target chemicals or chemicalclasses for reduced environmentalrelease: FQPA priority classes organo-phosphate, carbamates, and B2 prob-

able carcinogens; organochlorines;troublesome insecticides, herbicides,and fungicides; Toxicity Categories 1and 2 chemicals; etc.

Reducing the release of thesechemicals by adopting IPM, reduced-risk pesticides, biopesticides, and softerpesticides reduces risks to human

health and the environ-ment.

Using state datacollection or their ownsurveys for spray histo-ries, volumes applied,acre treatments, applica-tion rates, etc., theymonitor pesticide releasefor higher risk chemicalsand track downwardtrends in risk.

are reduced or eliminated.All Partners and Supporters could

adopt this strategy to some extent formonitoring reduced environmentalrelease of higher-risk chemicals asindicators for pollution prevention, riskreduction, and environmental steward-ship.

Eliminating pesticide residues incommodities is a goal for some Champi-ons, but reporting residue reductions arenot.

EPA uses USDA data to monitorpesticide residues for OPs, carbamates,and B2 carcinogens, using indicatorpercent detections in a rolling three yearaverage for each year thus smoothingout single year affects of weather, pestpressures, pest management practices,and/or commodities tested.

Perhaps, such an approach couldbe an option for PESP Partners andSupporters, not only for residues butalso for other measures.

Many PESP members track num-bers of acres under IPM or numbers ofcustomers who adopt IPM, defining IPMspecifically for its special situation, ornumbers of acres treated withbiopesticides and/or reduced-riskpesticides, etc.

The final step is to report these datasystematically as an indicator.

For monitoring treatment thresholdsunder IPM, growers trap pests. might also consider sampling beneficialinsects to indicate positive trends?

Or, perhaps they could team withtrained volunteers to monitor wildlife?

What could be said about farmworker protection in a way that could bean indicator?

If we cannot measure actual pesti-cide concentrations or detections inrivers, streams, wells, etc., what aboutadopting methods that prevent suchpollution and measure their use?

PESP is aware of numerous environ-mental indicators and intends to sharethat information with our Partners andSupporters.

There is a story to be told of whichwe all can be proud for our hard work asenvironmental stewards.

Page 5

TAKING THE FINAL STEP TOWARD STRONG,MEASURABLE END OUTPUTS

etc.

improved wildlife

From a

Exposures

They

Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center Technology TransferAll Service Pest Management, Inc. Comm./Resid. Pest ControlAlmond Board of California Tree Fruit and NutsAmerican Association of Pesticide Safety Educators Technology TransferAmerican Bird Conservancy Pesticides & Birds Campaign Technology Transfer

American Electric Power Service Corporation Rights-of-WayAmerican Mosquito Control Association Comm./Resid. Pest ControlAmerican Nursery and Landscape Association Landscaping/TurfAmerican Peanut Council Field/Row CropsAmerican Pest Management, Inc. Comm./Resid. Pest Control

Aquila Rights-of-WayAqumix, Inc. Rights-of-WayArizona Public Service Rights-of-WayArtichoke Research Association VegetablesAssociation of Applied IPM Ecologists Crop Consultants

Auburn University-Dept. of Entomol. & Plant Path. SchoolsAudubon International Cooperative Sanctuary Prog. Landscaping/TurfBay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Assoc. GovernmentBio-Integral Resource Center echnology TransferBrookfield Zoo Landscaping/Turf

California Pear Advisory Board Tree Fruit and NutsCalifornia Pear Growers Tree Fruit and NutsCalifornia Citrus Research Board Tree Fruit and NutsCalifornia Dried Plum Board Tree Fruit and NutsCalifornia Floral Council Landscaping/Turf

California Fresh Carrot Advisory Board VegetablesCalifornia Lettuce Research Board VegetablesCalifornia Melon Research Advisory Board Non-tree FruitsCalifornia Pistachio Commission Tree Fruit and NutsCalifornia Tomato Commission Vegetables

Campbell Soup Company Food ProcessorsCentral Coast Vineyard Team Non-tree FruitsCentral Maine Power Company Rights-of-WayCentral Vermont Public Service Corporation Rights-of-WayCentral Virginia Electric Cooperative Rights-of-Way

Chicago Parks District, Division of Conservatories Landscaping/TurfCity of Davis (CA) Landscaping/TurfClemson University Public Service & Agriculture Technology TransferConectiv Rights-of-WayCranberry Institute Non-tree Fruits

Cuyahoga County Board of Health GovernmentDel Monte Food ProcessorsDuke Power Company Rights-of-WayEden Advanced Pest Technologies Comm./Resid. Pest ControlEdison Electric Institute Rights-of-Way

Energy Association of Pennsylvania Rights-of-WayFarm & Home Environmental Management Programs Technology TransferFischer Environmental Services Inc. Comm./Resid. Pest ControlFlorida Fruit & Vegetable Association VegetablesFlorida Pest Control Association Comm./Resid. Pest Control

Florida Turfgrass Association Landscaping/TurfGeneral Mills, Inc. Food ProcessorsGeorgia Peach Council Tree Fruit and NutsGerber Products Company Food ProcessorsGlades Crop Care, Inc. Crop Consultants

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America Landscaping/TurfGriggs County (ND) 319 Water Quality Project GovernmentHawaii Area Wide Fruit Fly Pest Management Program Non-tree FruitsHawaii Banana Industry Association Non-tree FruitsHawaii Papaya Industry Association Tree Fruit and Nuts

Hawaiian Electric Company Rights-of-WayHighlands Soil & Water Non-tree FruitsHood River Grower-Shipper Association Tree Fruit and NutsInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Technology Transfer

International Cut Flower Growers Landscaping/TurfIPM Institute of North America, Inc. SchoolsKansas Corn Growers Association Field/Row CropsKansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association Field/Row CropsKyrene Elementary School Schools

Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape Commission Non-tree FruitsLow Input Viticulture and Enology of Oregon Non-tree FruitsMaryland Department of Agriculture GovernmentMassachusetts IPM Council Technology TransferMassey Services, Inc. Comm./Resid. Pest Control

Meligolf LLC Landscaping/TurfMiami Tribe of Oklahoma GovernmentMichigan Asparagus Research, Inc. VegetablesMichigan Cherry Committee Tree Fruit and NutsMint Industry Research Council Field/Row Crops

Monroe County School Corporation SchoolsNational Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants Crop ConsultantsNational Council of Farmer Cooperatives Technology TransferNational Grape Cooperative, Inc. Non-tree FruitsNational Grid Rights-of-Way

National Pest Management Association Comm./Resid. Pest ControlNational Pesticide Stewardship Alliance Technology TransferNational Potato Council Field/Row CropsNew England Fruit Consultants Crop ConsultantsNew England Vegetable & Berry Growers Assoc. Vegetables

New York City Board of Education GovernmentNew York Power Authority Rights-of-WayNew York State Gas & Electric Rights-of-WayNorth American Pollinator Protection Campaign Environmental OrganizationsNortheast Res., Ext. & Acad. Prg. Technology Transfer

Northeast Utilities Rights-of-WayNorthern Indiana Public Service Company Rights-of-WayNorthwest Alfalfa Seed Grower Association Field/Row CropsOrganic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) OrganicOwen Specialty Services, Inc. Rights-of-Way

Pacific Coast Producers Tree Fruit and NutsPacific Gas & Electric Rights-of-WayPear Pest Management Research Fund Tree Fruit and NutsPebble Beach Company Landscaping/TurfPennsylvania Power & Light Rights-of-Way

Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association Rights-of-WayPepco Rights-of-WayPineapple Growers Association of Hawaii Non-tree FruitsProfessional Lawn Care Association of America Landscaping/TurfProgress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Rights-of-Way

Rainforest Alliance - ECO o.k. Program Non-tree FruitsReliable Pest Control Comm./Resid. Pest ControlReMetrix LLC Technology TransferSanitary Pest Control Company Comm./Resid. Pest ControlSarasota County Government Public Works Government

Sonoma County Grape Growers Association Non-tree FruitsSouthwest School IPM Technical Resource Center SchoolsSprague Pest Solutions Comm./Resid. Pest ControlSteritech Group, Inc. Comm./Resid. Pest ControlSun-Maid Growers of California Non-tree FruitsSunkist Growers Tree Fruit and Nuts

Tennessee Valley Authority Rights-of-WayTexas Pest Management Association Technology TransferUniv. of Florida Cooperative Extension Service SchoolsUniv. of WI - Center for Integrated Agric. Systems Technology TransferU.S. Apple Association Tree Fruit and Nuts

U.S. Canola Association Field/Row CropsU.S. Department of Defense GovernmentU.S. Golf Association Landscaping/TurfU.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee Field/Row CropsU.S. Public Health Service Government

U.S. Sugar Corporation Field/Row CropsVA, MD, & DE Association of Electric Cooperatives Rights-of-WayVegetation Managers, Inc. Rights-of-WayWalnut Marketing Board Tree Fruit and NutsWalt Disney World Resort Landscaping/Turf

Washington State Department of Agriculture GovernmentWashington State Department of Transportation GovernmentWest Virginia Power Rights-of-WayWinter Pear Control Committee Tree Fruit and NutsWisconsin Apple Growers Association Tree Fruit and Nuts

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Rights-of-Way

Page 6

PESP MPESP MPESP MPESP MPESP MEMBERSEMBERSEMBERSEMBERSEMBERS WITHWITHWITHWITHWITH S S S S SECTECTECTECTECTOROROROROR A A A A AFFILIAFFILIAFFILIAFFILIAFFILIATIONSTIONSTIONSTIONSTIONS

Comm. for IPM

PESP consists of approximately 140 members. allow them to be grouped. These groupings or sectors allow EPA to more effectively manage a growing, complex program andprovide information specific to members who share the same concerns about pests and pest management. the same sector are encouraged to communicate such concerns and success stories with one another. Thereby, they will forma network for IPM and other activities that reduce pesticide risk. The PESP sectors are described below.

PESP membership is comprised of a strong agricultural component. crops, fall under this umbrella. , these sectors have been grouped.

Agriculture is a cross-media Agencyissue, directly affected by the FoodQuality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.An explicit goal of the FQPA is to reduceresidues on foods 30 percent by 2008.

During 2003, many agriculturalmembers supported the goals of theFQPA through their PESP strategiesand made significant strides in theirefforts to implement, communicate, andmeasure the effectiveness of sustainableprograms.

For example: partnered with state regulatory agenciesto track and measure reductions inpesticide use; cherry growers madeexciting progress in finding alternativesto organophosphate pesticides andtesting the efficacy of new pest manage-ment technologies; peach growersworked to adapt an existing matingdisruption product for use in agriculturalregions with longer pest cycles; aspara-

Page 7

PESP SPESP SPESP SPESP SPESP SECTORSECTORSECTORSECTORSECTORS

consists of sixteen diverse, volun-tary organizations working within theframework of the FQPA to build sustain-able farming and IPM programs thatsupport the production and distribution ofU.S. tree fruit and nut commodities.

TREE FRUIT AND NUTS SECTOR

encompasses the majority ofagricultural acreage in the United Statesand an important segment of the nation'seconomy, especially processed foodsand exports. wheat, cattle, potatoes, peanuts, hops,sugar, mint, alfalfa, canola, and tobacco.

FIELD AND ROW CROPS SECTOR

includes organizations representingthe wine grape, melon, cranberry, raisin,banana and pineapple industry, as wellas a groups dedicated to promoting soilhealth in both conventional and organicproduction systems.An emphasis on sustainable approachesto agriculture is paramount to many ofthe organizations in this sector. pecifi-cally, the wine grape grower groups thathave adopted positive point systems forassessing implementation of pesticiderisk reduction and other sustainablepractices in all aspects of wine grapegrowing.

NON-TREE FRUIT SECTOR

includes seven organizationsrepresenting various minor crops grownacross the country. s members havebeen seeking to learn more about thepest problems they face and developpest management programs to minimizerisk while ensuring the economic viabilityof vegetable growers. include IPM research and scoutingprograms, the development of IPMstandards and certification programs,and grower education.

VEGETABLE SECTOR

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR UMBRELLA

gus researchers increased the adoptionof on-farm scouting to expand the use ofdisease forecasting systems, resultingin growers making the transition toreduced-risk pesticides and using lesspesticides; and members made significant progress inexpanding the use of self-assessmentprograms, which focus on the level ofadoption of sustainable farming prac-tices.

In 2004, agricultural members willcontinue to confront challenges associ-ated with reducing the risk of pesticides.Members will deal with broad pestmanagement issues such as maintain-ing their export markets under IPMprograms and identifying reduced-risk,conventional pesticides andbiopesticides for new and emergingpests.

Members also will address specificproblems such as the impact of back-yard and urban pest reservoirs on IPM

farming programs. be increased focus on soil healththrough the use of compost teas andother means to increase populations ofsoil organisms necessary for improvednutrient cycling and reductions inpesticide inputs.

For its part, EPA will help membersconfront these issues and will continueto support the transition to reduced-riskand low-risk pest management prac-tices, further measurement and commu-nication of the effectiveness of theseprograms, and development of strategiesfor addressing emerging pest manage-ment issues.

In addition, PESP will seek andpromote cooperation and synergiesbetween our members and applicableGovernment programs such as EPA’sStrategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) andUSDA’s Regional IPM Centers.

While these organizations are quite diverse, they share attributes that

Members within

Four individual sectors, whose members produce foodFor the purpose of brevity

eaten by children by

almond growers

It includes corn, cotton,

S

It

Their efforts

several wine grape

In addition, there will

Antimicrobial pesticides are used todestroy or suppress the growth ofharmful microorganisms—bacteria,viruses, or fungi on inanimate objectsand surfaces.

More than 5,000 antimicrobialproducts are currently registered withEPA, and sold in the marketplace.Approximately 40% of antimicrobialproducts are used in the home to controlsuch things as mold and mildew, andthe other 60% are registered to controlinfectious microorganisms in hospitalsand other health care environments.From anthrax clean-up to swimming poolmaintenance, antimicrobial pesticidesaffect all of us.

Since this is a new sector, plans for2004 involve recruiting and buildingliaison relationships with six associa-tions which work closely with the usersof antimicrobial pesticides and can helpEPA achieve its goals of protectinghuman health and the environment.

The sector will establish relation-ships with associations in the heating,ventilation, and cooling industry,antifoulant alternatives/paint area, foodprocessing plants, home buildingassociation (focusing on mold andmildew), wood preservative industry, andthe public health arena.

EPA will recruit these user associa-tions, assist them in developing theirstrategies, and help them clearly defineachievable and measurable goals.

The sector’s priorities in 2004 will bedisseminating information and researchon heavy duty wood preservatives– usedon everything from playground equip-ment to utility poles –and registeringalternatives.

PESP also will work with sectormembers to refine their strategies,confront new antimicrobial issues,identify opportunities for communicatinginformation, cooperate with each otherand others in the PESP network, andalign their programs with nationalenvironmental indicators.

The 12 members of this sector areengaged in activities ranging fromstructural and general pest control incommercial buildings and residences tothe control of mosquitoes and otheroutdoor pests common to the urban andsuburban environment.

The sector includes nine small tomidsize pest control companies, twonational trade associations, and onestate trade association.

Insecticides comprise about 95% ofpesticide products used by theseindustries. About one-half of applica-tions nationwide are located in theSoutheast due to climate conditions andpest pressures.

PESP supports this sector in itsefforts to reduce pesticide risk throughcultural controls, the elimination ofbreeding sites, and the use of reduced-risk products and spot treatments.

A major theme in this sector isdisseminating information to applicatorsand other technicians by means ofworkshops, training sessions, factsheets, and other means. There is agrowing emphasis on outreach andeducation to consumers and the generalpublic through Web sites, one-on-oneinformation exchange, newsletters, andthe media.

In 2003, members reduced the useof injected dusts and foggers, increasedthe use of termite baits in place ofbarrier treatments, and reduced the useof pyrethroid dusts and sprays forstructural pests.

In mosquito control, the nationalassociation has made progress in itsaerial spray program by calibratingaircraft and ground spray booms andoptimizing droplet size/larvicide efficacycorrelations.

A major challenge for 2004 iscontrolling the West Nile Virus. Man-agement of the disease’s vectors,particularly the Culex pipiens complex,can be very difficult, particularly in urbanareas.

Members will research controlstrategies to determine which work bestunder various circumstances, and manynew mosquito control programs will needto respond as the virus spreads. In

addition to research, members need toeducate the public about this disease.

In the area of general and structuralpest control, the industry continues totransition to reduced-risk and low-riskpest management practices followingthe phase-out of organophosphatepesticides.

Page 8

ANTIMICROBIAL SECTOR COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL PEST

CONTROL SECTOR

This new sector includes fourorganizations representing over 500 cropconsultants in the U.S. and covering agood cross-section of agriculture.These organizations provide independenttechnical support, research, and adviceto growers. Their basic mission toimplement scientific and technologicaladvances that enhance environmentalsustainability and profitability on clients’farms.

Crop consultants provide an essen-tial link to growers to maximize thebenefit of latest technological develop-ments and integrated farm managementtechniques, and an important connectionto influence accepted farming practicesin local communities.

Last year, sector members signifi-cantly aided the adoption of safer,integrated technologies and pestmanagement practices by conductingresearch, demonstrating new tech-niques, promoting the use of GIS/GPS-based targeting technologies, anddeveloping IPM measurement method-ologies. Members disseminatedinformation to growers and other techni-cians by means of workshops, trainingsessions, fact sheets, networking witheducational institutions and conductingor monitoring demonstration trials.

In 2004, PESP will broaden ourconnection with crop consultants andsupport their efforts to reduce pesticiderisks and improve pest managementpractices among their growers. PESPrecognizes that consultants frequentlywork with the most innovative andtechnologically conscious growers andthat these growers are an important inaffecting pest management practices.

This sector will also benefit andevolve from networking with existingagricultural and technology transfersectors and from reinforcing its strongconnections with universities andgovernment agencies with similarinterests.

CROP CONSULTANTS SECTOR

Nine federal, state, county and tribalorganizations that support programs inpollution prevention, pesticide riskreduction, IPM and environmentalstewardship comprise this sector.

It offers unique opportunities forpartnering because its members areempowered and directed by statute andcharter to protect and improve humanhealth and environment.

These members are leaders in theirrespective areas of action, conductingand overseeing health and environmentalprograms for which they are account-able. In establishing their goals, theynegotiate with diverse stakeholders onhow best to accomplish outcomes thatbenefit their respective communities.

In 2003, members of the Govern-ment Sector served as “pathfinders” byturning problems and possibilities intopositive actions for public health and theenvironment. For example, one state’sdepartment of agriculture worked closelywith a local university to evaluate theuse of beneficial insects as alternativesto insecticides and to propagate theinsects for use by growers. A majorfederal department updated its pestmanagement plans for all of its facilitiesin an effort to reduce pesticide use andrisk.

planting native species of plants andusing pesticides only where and whenthey are needed.

Members also exchanged informa-tion within their industry and highlightedpositive role models through theircertification programs. Some projectsdemonstrated new biological controlsand new varieties of grass as alterna-tives to conventional pesticides.

Members of initiatives addressinggolf courses and residential lawns andlandscapes reached consensus onprinciples of environmental stewardshipand public education.

In 2004, the sector will undertakethe challenge of finding new pesticidesthat are effective, affordable, and reducepesticide risk. Examples includeadvances in biotechnology and newgrasses, which require less mainte-nance and are more tolerant of cold,drought, shade and heat.

Research will be undertaken todevelop economical, broad-spectrumproducts to control weeds and toreplace highly toxic insecticides such asdiazinon and chlorpyrifos.

In addition, members will provideeducation on water protection to com-mercial applicators and the public.

Page 9

Comprised of four major foodprocessors, this sector seeks to fosterinformation sharing related to pestmanagement practices among itsmembers. Members of this sector areunique in that their brand identities are ofprimary importance and their use ofpesticides is often closely guarded fromthe general public. Through sharing theresults of their pest managementpractices and research, this sectoroffers it members an opportunity formutual benefit.

In 2003, the sector was led by onemember who is pursuing risk reductionon several fronts - reduced use, substitu-tion of reduced-risk pesticides, andsound IPM practices.

In 2004, PESP will develop astronger relationship with the membersof this sector and engage them all in thestrategy process. Additionally, thissector is ripe for growth as there arenumerous food processors who wouldbenefit from the knowledge and experi-ence of the current PESP members.

FOOD PROCESSORS SECTOR

GOVERNMENT SECTOR

This new sector will open PESPmembership to organic grower groupsand organizations that wish to partnerwith EPA to address issues directlyimpacting organic agriculture.

There are more than 12,000 organicfarmers in the United States, with thatnumber increasing up to 12% every year.Organic food producers use materialsand methods that minimize negativeimpacts on the environment, and mostproducers follow some type of standard.

In 2004, EPA will consider formembership in the Organic Sector:grower groups, non-profit organizations,trade associations, universities, andother institutions that utilize, advocate,or support organic cropping systems.

In addition, EPA will work with newmembers to provide a forum for theidentification of reduced-risk, pestmanagement tactics employed inorganic production systems that can betransferred successfully to conventionalagriculture.

ORGANIC SECTOR

This sector addresses the use ofpesticides on ornamentals (e.g., flowers)and turf on residential and commercialproperties, public spaces, and golfcourses. It includes associations thatrepresent the ornamental and lawn careindustries, the golf course industry, andpublic organizations.

The ornamental industry faceschallenges similar to minor crops in thatthe economic incentives to register newpesticides are limited by the potential forlow pesticide sales.

The turf industry, a more significantpesticide market, is mainly concernedwith controlling weeds on residentialproperties and diseases on golf courses.

In 2003, sector members aided theadoption of modern, safer technologiesand pest management practices. Theyeducated pesticide users to practiceIPM through cultural controls such as

LANDSCAPING & TURF SECTOR

A new sector was recently formed toprovide a place in PESP for non-growerorganizations whose mission is toreduce the risk of pesticides to humanhealth and the environment.

Recruited organizations will mostlikely be non-profit, non-government,public interest or environmental groupsthat promote the use of biopesticidesand IPM. In addition, many of theseorganizations are working to improvehuman health and the environmentoverall and will bring much knowledgeand experience to PESP.

In 2004, PESP will work closely withorganizations that share common valueswith EPA and are committed to pesticidesafety, education, and the adoption ofalternative pest management strategieswhich reduce or eliminate a dependenceon pesticides.

Many of this sector's activities willevolve from networking with existingsectors including Agriculture, Technol-ogy Transfer, Schools, and Landscapingand Turf.

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

SECTOR

Page 10

The mission of the Schools Sectoris to protect school children fromunnecessary exposure to pesticides.The Sector includes universities develop-ing school training programs, non-profitorganizations developing IPM certifica-tion programs, and school districtsimplementing pilot programs.

In 2003, over 2 million childrenbenefited from IPM school projectsdeveloped or coordinated by PESPmembers and EPA’s Pesticides andSchools Initiative. New York City’s IPMprogram accounted for a large percent-age of these students. Many otherprograms are based on a model devel-oped by Monroe County, Indiana.

These IPM programs are resulting inmeasurable reductions in the use andrisk of pesticides. For example, mem-ber schools reduced pesticide applica-tions and pest management costs byover 90 percent.

By furthering IPM in schools, thesemembers also contributed to pesticidesafety and awareness at home.

In 2004 and beyond, the SchoolsSector will improve regional coordinationfor IPM activities in schools and focuson expanding the district school modelsfor state implementation.

A pilot program based on theMonroe County model is underway inthe District of Columbia.

EPA will also work with new PESPmembers, such as the National HeadStart Program, to disseminate informa-tion on safer, reduced-risk pest manage-ment practices for both school andhome environments.

PESP will continue to expand thissector and focus its recruitment effortson large organizations that representschool business officials, custodialpersonnel, and teachers.

SCHOOLS SECTOR

This diverse sector is comprised of18 non-profit associations, institutes,resource centers, universities and otherorganizations whose goal is to identify,develop and promote innovative technolo-gies that reduce the risk of pesticidesand promote pest management prac-tices that minimize negative effects onthe environment.

In 2003, members reported a host ofresearch and outreach activities andprograms that promoted the use of IPM,biopesticides and organic croppingsystems.

Members also trained pest controloperators, informed the public aboutleast-toxic alternatives to pesticides,offered continuing education programs,and sponsored numerous web sites andpublications. In addition, members alsowere actively involved with labeling andmarketing approaches that supportenvironmentally friendly agriculture.

Finally, many members assumedleadership roles in identifying andemploying methods to measure theoutcomes of their programs.

In 2004, PESP will work closely withmembers of this sector to identifyalternative approaches that can beleveraged to improve the performance ofother sectors and members .

PESP will also explore nationalimplications and opportunities for theadoption of technologies and innovationsthat have been successful at the localand regional level.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SECTOR

There are currently 26 Partners andSupporters in this large and activesector. Because of the high number ofparticipants, some members serve asumbrellas or coordinating bodies for theiraffiliate members.

Members include utility companies,energy associations, vegetation man-agement companies, governmentagencies and other organizations whosegoal is to promote the use of IPM in themaintenance of rights of ways fortransmission of electric power. Mem-bers of this sector are keenly aware ofthe public’s concerns about pesticiderisk reduction, pollution prevention, andenvironmental stewardship.

Last year, sector members workedto train and educate their own workersand contractors on Integrated VegetationManagement (IVM), ecosystem mainte-nance and habitat management. Inaddition, information sharing betweenmembers also played a large role in thissector with members suggesting ideasand options under adoption for use bytheir peers. For example, severalmembers are adopting the use ofGeographical Information Systems (GIS)and Global Positioning Systems (GPS)assist in managing rights of ways.

These and other practices havedirectly resulted in measurable reductionin the use of herbicides and PESP isdrawing wide attention to them bothwithin the sector and in other sectors.Other members are particularly progres-sive in the management of rights of waysas wildlife habitat and are using ap-proaches that might offer models forconsideration by other companies. Stillother members have developed excellentpublic outreach programs.

In 2004, PESP will continue tobroadcast and highlight the successesof its participating sector members andwill recruit organizations that representother rights of way such as highways,railroads and park lands.

PESP will also continue to identifypromote and encourage the use of newtechnologies, innovations, and novelapproaches to maintaining rights of wayin a manner that minimizes the risk ofpesticides to the environment.

RIGHTS-OF-WAY SECTOR