April 1-4, 2001 Meeting Minutes

Minutes
agInnovation South Spring Meeting
April 1-4, 2001
Radisson Hotel – Cypress 2 Room
Baton Rouge, LA

Participants | Action Items | Assignments | Agenda

General Schedule

Sunday, April 1:
5:00 – 7:00pm – Informal Reception – Radisson Mississippi Delta Room
Monday, April 2:
8:00 – 4:30 – agInnovation South meeting
8:30 – 4:30 – Guest activity to St. Francisville
6:00 – 9:00 – Evening activity at Louisiana Rural Life Museum (outdoors/informal)
Tuesday, April 3:
8:00 – noon – agInnovation South meeting
8:30 – noon – Guest activity to LSU and Magnolia Mound Historic Home
Noon – 4:30 – Tour of unique Louisiana agriculture (crawfish and sugarcane research and production)
5:30 – 10:00 – Evening activity – Chef John Folse’s White Oak Plantation Restaurant
Wednesday, April 4:
8:00 – noon – agInnovation South meeting

Participants

agInnovation South:
Jerry Arkin, GA
David Boethel, LA
Greg Brown, VA
William F. Brown, FL
William H. Brown, LA
Jerry Cherry, GA
D. C. Coston, OK
Nancy Cox, MS
Jim Fischer, SC
Frank Gilstrap, TX
T. J. Helms, Exec. Dir.
Robin Huettel, AL
Paula Jacobi, LA
Richard Jones, FL

Skip Jubb, VA
Tom Klindt, TN
Fred Knapp, KY
Steven Leach, NC
David Morrison, LA
Jim Rakocy, VI
Anna Marie Rasberry
Charles Scifres, TX
Calvin Schoulties, SC
Bob Shulstad, GA
Neal Thompson, FL
Vance Watson, MS
Bob Westerman, OK
Greg Weidemann, AR
Eric Young, NC

Liaisons:
Bo Beaulieu, SRDC
Sam Donald, ARS
George Cooper, CSREES
James Coppedge, ARSOther guests:
Van Bowersox, NADP
Robert Holm, IR-4
Gary Pederson, S-009
Norm Nesheim, PMC
Craig Tucker, SRAC

Action Items

Agenda Item 1: Approved previous minutes and interim actions.
Agenda Item 7:
- Approved Operational Guidelines
- Approved trial procedure for AC review process
- Approved empowerment of Executive Committee to adopt future editorial changes and to decide if other changes warranted discussion and vote by full agInnovation South membership.
Agenda Item 16: Support recommendation to participate in IMSS, including formation of a national oversight committee.
Agenda Item 18:
- Extended Executive Director’s contract for 2 years; asked for 9-month notification of retirement plans
- Approved agInnovation South operating budget for 01/02
- Approved membership by Association in C-FAR
Off-the-top funding:
- Agenda Item 21: Approved NRSP-1 funding at $289,250 without caveat
- Agenda Item 22: Approved NRSP-3 funding at $116,145 with caveat
- Agenda Item 23: Approved NRSP-4 funding at $531,673 with caveat
- Agenda Item 24: Approved NRSP-5 funding at $268,596 with caveat
- Agenda Item 25: Approved NRSP-6 funding at $166,007 with caveat
- Agenda Item 26: Approved NRSP-8 funding at $380,000 with caveat
- Agenda Item 27: Approved S-009 funding at $384,832 with caveat
Agenda Item 29:
- Approved S-183’s proposed information exchange group as a SERA, contingent on Extension Directors’ approval; otherwise it is approved as an IEG.
- Approved termination of IEG-61
- Approved termination of IEG-71
Agenda Item 34: Approved status of Sam Donald as official liaison from ARD to agInnovation South; and recognized the agInnovation South Executive Director as official liaison to ARD
Agenda Item 36: Approved nominations for officers:
- Vance Watson, MS – Chair elect (effective immediately)
- Charles Scifres, TX – Chair elect (effective November, 2001)
- Greg Weidemann, AR – Executive Committee Member-at-Large (effective November, 2001 for 2 years)
Agenda Item 37: Approved resolution related to energy crisis with transmission to ASRED.

Assignments

Agenda Item 8: Operational Plan:
- Executive Director is to talk with other EDs and the ESCOP Executive Committee about having a half-day workshop for new directors during the fall SAES/ARD workshop.
- Executive Director and Chair are to investigate ways to combine various state analyses’ efforts.
- Executive Director is to pursue concept of inviting stakeholder representatives to future meetings.
Agenda Item 15: Executive Director and Chair are to work with Jay Ritchie of SSRC to identify the best format for data presentation of RPAs by national goal.
Agenda Item 18: Review SSRC activities related to agInnovation South contract.
Agenda Item 31:
- Prepare a resolution of appreciation for Dr. Pass’ contributions to Southern Region IPM program.
- Dr. Knapp, Chair of the IPM Committee, is to provide a report during the summer meeting regarding a procedure for selecting a new grants manager when needed.

Monday, April 2
Time	Agenda #	Agenda Item – Presenter
7:00		Continental Breakfast
8:00		Passing the Gavel – Vance Watson
8:05		Welcome and Introductions – William H. Brown
8:10	1.	Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions – William H. Brown
8:20	~	ESCOP Core Committee Reports:
~	2.	Advocacy and Marketing – Jim Fischer
~	3.	Budget and Legislative – Jerry Cherry
~	4.	Science and Technology – Nancy Cox
~	5.	Partnerships – D.C. Coston
~	6.	Planning – Eric Young
8:50	7.	Operational Guidelines: Adoption and Clarification – T. J. Helms
10:00		Break
10:30	8.	Operational Plan – William H. Brown and T. J. Helms
11:00	9.	IR-4 Update – Robert Holm
11:20	10.	Southern Region Aquaculture Center Report – Craig Tucker
11:40	11.	CSREES – George Cooper
12:00		Lunch
1:00	12.	ARS – James Coppedge
1:10	13.	ASRED (Southern Extension Directors) – (no report)
1:20	14.	AESOP – Terry Nipp (via phone)
1:40	15.	Report: Southern Region Data Support System Project – Jay Ritchie
2:20	16.	Information Management and Support System (IMSS) – T. J. Helms
3:00		Break
3:30	17.	Special Report: Formosan Termite Program – Greg Henderson and Dennis Ring
4:15		(Added agenda item 39.)
4:25		(Added agenda item 40.)
4:40		(Added agenda item 41.)
4:50		Adjourn
Tuesday, April 3
7:00		Continental Breakfast
7:00		Chief Operating Officers Meeting – Radisson Board Room
8:00	18.	Report of the Chief Operating Officers Meeting – William H. Brown
8:15	19.	Executive Director’s Annual Report – T.J. Helms
8:30	20.	NRSP-3: National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Supporting Research on Effects of Atmospheric Chemical Deposition – Van Bowersox
9:00		Off-the-top Funding: NRSP’s FY02 Budget Requests:
~	21.	NRSP-1 – Eric Young
~	22.	NRSP-3 – Allen Dunn / Van Bowersox
~	23.	NRSP-4 – Neal Thompson
~	24.	NRSP-5 – D.C. Coston
~	25.	NRSP-6 – Eric Young
~	26.	NRSP-8 – Jerry Cherry
9:30	27.	S-009 FY02 Budget Request – Jerry Arkin and Gary Pederson
10:00		Break
10:30	28.	Multistate Research Committee Report – Nancy Cox
11:00	29.	Review Requests for New or Modified Activities – William H. Brown
11:20	30.	SERA-TF-12: Southeastern Small Fruit Center – Calvin Schoulties
11:30	~	(TBA)
12:00		Adjourn
Wednesday, April 4 (8am – noon)
7:00		Continental Breakfast
8:00	31.	Southern Region IPM – Fred Knapp
8:20	32.	Southern Rural Development Center – Lionel J. “Bo” Beaulieu
8:50	33.	Regional Pest Management Center – Norm Nesheim
10:00		Break
10:30	34.	ARD (Association of Research Directors) – Sam Donald
10:45	35.	Plans and dates for upcoming meetings – William H. Brown
11:00	36.	Nominating Committee Report – Richard Jones
11:15	37.	Resolutions Committee Report – David Boethel and William F. Brown
11:30	38.	Additional announcements/discussions, adjournment – William H. Brown
~	39.	New publication from Clemson – Calvin Schoulties
~	40.	NRSP External Reviews – George Cooper
~	41.	National Peanut Board Contracts – Richard Jones

Agenda Item 1.
Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions

Presenter: William H. Brown
Background: The following items will be presented for approval:

Agenda
Minutes from the August, 2000 meeting
Interim Actions:
- Appointed Ken Esbenshade, NC as administrative advisor to SERA-IEG-15, “Competitiveness and Sustainability of the Southern Dairy Industry,” replacing Tom Scott.
- Appointed Eric Young, NC as member of the Southern Region Multistate Research Committee.
- Appointed Vance Watson, MS as representative to the Tecoman Cotton Winter Nursery Steering Committee, replacing Larry Rogers.
- Appointed Nancy Cox, MS as chair of the Southern Region Multistate Research Committee, replacing Greg Weidemann.
- Appointed Johnny Wynne, NC as representative to the Joint Cotton Breeding Advisory Committee, replacing Larry Rogers.
- Appointed Jerry Cherry, GA as administrative advisor to S-289, “Factors Associated with Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Poultry: Molecular to Populational,” replacing Tom Scott.
- Approved Development Committee DC00-07, “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment, and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture” with Frank Gilstrap as administrative advisor.
- Appointed Kriton Hatzios, VA to the Regional IPM Policy Committee, replacing Frank Gilstrap.
- Appointed Jim Moran, TN as administrative advisor to SERA-IEG-19, “The Changing Rural Health System: Education for Consumers and Providers,” replacing Janet Johnson.
- Appointed Robert Westerman, OK as administrative advisor to SERA-IEG-6, “Nutrient Analysis of Soils, Plants, Water, and Waste Materials,” replacing Scott Smith.
- Appointed Robert Westerman, OK as administrative advisor to IEG-73, “Classifying Soils for Solute Transport as Affected by Soil Properties and Landscape Positions,” replacing Scott Smith.
- Appointed Tom Knecht, MS as administrative advisor to SERA-IEG-28, “Image Enhancement,” replacing Larry Rogers.
- Appointed Greg Weidemann, AR as administrative advisor to S-302, “Biological Control of Soilborne Plant Pathogens for Sustainable Agriculture,” replacing Everett Emino.
- Appointed C. A. Speer, TN as a Southern Region representative to ESCOP’s Advocacy and Marketing Committee, replacing Scott Smith.
- Sent Thank-You letters to David Caldwell and Karl Larson, NC for their work on the Association’s Five-Year Plan brochure.
- Appointed John Sherwood, GA as administrative advisor to IEG-25, “Plant Root Environment,” replacing Everett Emino.
- Appointed Jan Hathcote, GA as administrative advisor to SERA-IEG-10, “Housing in the Rural South,” replacing Roberta Minish.
- Appointed David Boethel, LA as administrative advisor to S-281, “Dynamic Soybean Insect Management for Emerging Agricultural Technologies and Variable Environments,” replacing Phil Utley.
- Appointed D. C. Coston, OK as administrative advisor to S-290, “Technical and Economical Efficiencies of Producing, Marketing, and Managing Environmental Plants,” replacing Everett Emino.
- Appointed Al Smith, GA as administrative advisor to IEG-22, “Soil Survey,” replacing Everett Emino.
- Appointed Robin Huettel, AL as a member of the Regional IPM Policy Committee, replacing Randy Luttrell.
- Appointed Nancy Cox, MS as administrative advisor to S-284, “Genetic Enhancement of Health and Survival for Dairy Cattle,” replacing Phil Utley.
- Appointed Robert Shulstad, GA as administrative advisor to S-222, “Fruit and Vegetable Supply-Chain Management, Innovations, and Competitiveness,” replacing Everett Emino.
- Appointed Charles Scifres, TX as administrative advisor to S-183, “Phenology, Population Dynamics and Interference: A Basis for Understanding Weed Biology and Ecology,” replacing Larry Rogers.

Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken:

Additions to agenda:
Announcement of new publication – Calvin Schoulties
Discussion of Florida peanut contract – Richard Jones
Minutes and Interim actions were approved on motion/second by Drs. Coston and Fischer.

Agenda Item 2.
ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee

Presenter: Jim Fischer
Background: Recent meetings of the A& M Committee focused on the committee’s goal(s). It was decided that the committee needed to focus on a few specific items, rather than a broad agenda. Distinctions were made between advocacy (i.e., one on one with decision makers) and marketing (i.e., overall awareness efforts). It was proposed that the two topics of GMOs and Genomics might make a good fit for the Committee’s advocacy and marketing efforts. This point seemed to have broad appeal to those in attendance. Agreement was reached that the committee will need to do something simple, and with a concise message. The need was recognized to go forward with a planned strategy, and to build some continuity with a narrow focus on a particular topic.
The committee decided that the Food Genomics Initiative, along with the issue of GMOs and public acceptance would be the committee’s first focus. The goal will be to figure out how to market and advocate for this technology, using our institutional research capacities and educational approaches. The intention will be to support the Food and Society Initiative as it relates to the topic of Genomics and GMO acceptance.
It was decided during the February meeting to focus on Congress members and their staff with targeted messages. This will need to be fitted to the rest of what is going on by others (i.e., BOA Budget Committee). What is also needed is the identification of Congressional champions. Some suggestions for member-contacts were given.
Proposed activities are: develop a bookmark on the four BOA themes; and a set of (maybe 6?) impact statements on what IFAFS has accomplished already. For the bookmark, one side would have the BOA’s four themes. On the other side there would be a set of deliverables. The top-of-the-page identifier would be the NASULGC BOA. Three of the four one-pagers are on the web. These were reviewed for their value to this exercise.
Suggested goals for the four themes were:

A Dependable Food Supply
Develop foods to combat specific diseases, and improve nutrition and health.
Make the food supply safe from microbial and chemical contamination.
Environmental Balance
Significantly reduce water pollution derived from agricultural operations.
Eliminate the detrimental effects of animal wastes on the environment.
Revitalized Communities
Strengthen communities by helping families balance work and home life.
Empower rural communities to bridge the digital divide.
Educated Workforce
Educate today’s workforce to cope with changing technology.
Prepare leaders for the global economy and the information age.

Regarding the one-pagers that are to be prepared on the accomplishments for the 2000 IFAFS awards, the final product is needed by March 2, 2001. This means that the initial statements are needed by Iowa State by February 20, 2001. Wendy Wintersteen will coordinate. Selections will be made from the list of awardees (IFAFS home page), to reflect congressional interests.
The final draft of the bookmark will be reviewed by A & M and printed/published by the University of Georgia’s College of Agriculture. D. MacKenzie will help gather the initial information, and assist D. Foster and Wendy Wintersteen in the project’s development.
Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 3.
ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee

Presenter: Jerry Cherry
Background:
Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information: Dr. Cherry deferred mention of specifics regarding the budget to Dr. Nipp’s report later in the day. Appreciation was expressed to Tom Payne for his dedication to the budget process on behalf of ESCOP.

Agenda Item 4.
ESCOP Science and Technology Committee

Presenter: Nancy Cox
Background:
Review of Committee Activities:

Agriculture Biotech Implementation Task Force
Chaired by Tom Hoban
Report is forthcoming
Ag Biotech Task Force
Report is complete
Farm Crisis – changed to Rural Community and Farm Crisis Task Force
This task force has begun its work
Food Safety
This is a new Standing Subcommittee joint with ECOP
Steve Taylor is chair, Mike Doyle is co-chair and Darrell Nelson is administrative advisor
Genetic Resources
Randy Woodson will check with Dick Lower for suggestions for the future of this committee
Genomics Steering Committee
Colin Kaltenbach is chair
This group met in Washington in November and AESOP was to provide a follow-up report
Pest Management Strategies
Eldon Ortman was chair; a new chair will be sought
Roadmap Task Force
Colin Kaltenbach is chair
All appointments have been made; goal is to have a report in three months for use by C-FAR
Social Sciences
Committee chaired by Lou Swanson
Provided three reports on Biotechnology, Food Safety, and Community Vitality

Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information: Dr. Cox expressed appreciation for the leadership of Randy Woodson, Purdue, as chair of the Science and Technology Committee.

Agenda Item 5.
ESCOP Partnerships Committee

Presenter: D. C. Coston
Background: The Partnerships Task Force is meeting March 21-22 to follow up on the Baltimore Conference. Results of the Task Force meeting will be discussed.
Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information: The Task Force has reviewed the outcomes of the workshop and some followup actions have been initiated. A final copy of the Baltimore material will be distributed soon. The Task Force will then consider its work complete and will probably be dissolved by mid-summer. If reactivated in the future, a new Partnership Task Force should include representatives of ACOP and ICOP. It is thought that rather than conducted an indepth workshop annually, it would be best to hold such activity every 2-3 years or on an as-needed basis.
Dr. Brown expressed appreciation to D. C. Coston and others on the committee for envisioning the need for this activity and for carrying out the objectives of the workshop.

Agenda Item 6.
ESCOP Planning Committee

Presenter: Eric Young
Background: The ESCOP Planning Committee met in Mystic, CT on October 4, 2000. The primary task during this meeting was to refine the future research priorities identified by the Directors at the September SAES/ARD Workshop in New Orleans. The priority list developed from breakout group input at the Workshop by Dick Lower, Tom Payne, Terry Nipp, May Naddaf, and Eric Young and all the raw material from the breakout groups was reviewed and refined. The resulting priority list is available on the ESCOP Workroom web site at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/draftdoc.htm and shown below. These priorities were presented to, and approved by, the ESCOP Executive Committee at their meeting in San Antonio on November 14 and reproduced below for your information.
Experiment Station Section
NATIONAL RESEARCH PRIORITIES
2005 – 2010
The following five research areas (in bold) were selected as the highest priority areas for future research activities by the SAES/ARD Directors at their Workshop in New Orleans, September 26-28, 2000. The statement below each area (in italics) represents the primary outcome-oriented goal desired from research in that area. The bullet list (not in priority order) under each area indicates areas for more specific research activities of critical national need within each high priority area.

Environment, Natural Resources, and Landscape Stewardship
Natural resources will be managed to improve the environment and the economy.
- Water: ecosystems/watershed management, quality and quantity
- Land: use, management, and preservation
- Biodiversity
- Risk assessment
Relationship of Food to Human Health
Food will always contribute to human health.
- Human health impacts of food, diet, and environment
- Assuring safe food throughout the food value chain
- Nutraceuticals and functional foods
Rural Community Vitality
Agricultural science will help rural communities thrive.
- Human capital development
- Access to and application of new technologies
- Risks facing rural people
- Competitiveness of commodity-based and product-based enterprises
Biobased Products
Biobased products will be central to sustaining the economy and the environment.
- Biofuels and biobased materials
- Genetic enhancement and preservation
- Nutraceuticals and functional foods
- Social, economic, and environmental dimensions of technological change
Functional Genomics and Bioinformatics
Genomic science will help assure global health and well being.
- Genetically enhanced plants, animals, and microorganisms
- Improved techniques to advance genomic science
- Safety, risk assessment, and consumer use

The ECOP / ESCOP Joint Planning Committee also met in Mystic, CT on October 5, 2000, to review and discuss the report of the Joint Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology. The purpose of this discussion was to offer input to the recently formed joint Agricultural Biotechnology Implementation Task Force. The chair of this Task Force, Dr. Tom Hoban (Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, NCSU), participated in this meeting. Our featured speaker was Dr. Gil Meyer, Director Biotechnology Issues and Programs, Dupont, who made a presentation on “Biotechnology Implications for Strategic Planning” describing Dupont’s philosophy and current strategies in agricultural biotechnology. Tom Hoban then lead the Joint Planning Committee in a discussion focused on the following questions relative to the Implementation Task Force.
What do you see as our Task Force’s mission, objectives and deliverables?
What are the LGU system’s strengths and weaknesses in this area?
What are the opportunities and threats the LGU system faces in this area?The results of this discussion are available on the Committee’s web site at http://www.escop. msstate.edu/committee/plan00.htm#Action, and was transmitted to the Implementation Task Force for their consideration.
The Joint Committee decided, with Dr. Hoban’s encouragement, that our next meeting would concentrate on futuring 20 to 50 years into the future with a focus on biotechnology (broadly defined) using a process outlined in the book entitled “Art of the Long View” and facilitated by Gil Meyer. Our futuring will include potential ethical, social, scientific, economic, political and environmental issues and impacts of biotechnology advancements. This meeting was held in conjunction with the Partnership Workshop on Monday, February 12, but the compilation of outputs is not yet available.
Action Requested: No action requested, discussion only.
In-meeting information: It was noted that priorities developed by the Planning Committee and approved by ESCOP are being utilized by the Budget Committee and by AESOP to help guide the future direction of the System.

Agenda Item 7.
Operational Guidelines

Presenter: T. J. Helms
Background: The Operational Guidelines for Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Directors provide functional descriptions of all activities related to Multistate Research and related programs in the Southern Region. These guidelines are a regional supplement to the national Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities which were approved by the Experiment Station Section for implementation on October 1, 2000. Subsequently, agInnovation South’s Operational Guidelines were updated for conformity with the national guidelines.
Our By-Laws require that amendments to the Operational Guidelines must be approved during any called meeting of the Association at which a quorum exists. Thus, this is the first opportunity we have had to review and approve the suggested amendments to the guidelines.
Action Requested: Approval of the agInnovation South Operational Guidelines as amended.
In-meeting information: Directors discussed the merits of scientists’ involvement in multistate research activities and the importance of the administrative advisors (AA) communicating those merits to the scientists at annual meetings, etc. It was suggested that it might be helpful for AAs to have a standard document from which to talk with the scientists. Facilitating and supporting scientists’ travel to annual meetings was also discussed.
Highlighted changes in the Operational Guidelines included changes in reporting requirements:

Minutes are no longer required as a separate submission, but are included in the annual report.
An annual Accomplishments Report is due for all activities within 60 days following the annual meeting.
The Annual Accomplishments Report for Multistate Research Projects should be submitted as an e-mail attachment, rather than through the web submission form. All other activities continue using the web submission form. (It was noted that these procedures will change again as the Information Management Support System (IMSS) for Multistate Research is implemented.)

Action Taken:

On motion/second by Drs. Scifres and Morrison, memberhip approved addition of the following statement to the section on Administrative Advisor duties: “Orient committee members annually as to the origin and role of the agInnovation South, various activities administered by agInnovation South, the nature and expectations of multistate activities including funding, and other information as related to the specific activity.”
On motion/second by Drs. Young and Morrison, membership approved Part 1 of the draft procedure to improve involvement of the association’s Advisory Committees in the merit review process of new activities. (Item “e” of Part 1 was contingent on subsequent approval of Part 2.) On motion/second by Drs. Young and Cox, membership approved referring Part 2 of the draft procedure to the Multistate Research Committee (MRC) for further refinement. Subsequently, the MRC presented a revised draft of Part 2. On motion/second by Drs. Young and Boethel, the membership adoped the procedure for for trial on the next three Development Committees submitted for consideration of approval. The new trial Advisory Committee Merit Review process is as follows:SOUTHERN REGION ADVISORY COMMITTEES
MULTISTATE RESEARCH PROJECT REVIEW PROCESSDevelopment Committee Proposal Review (approved for implementation by agInnovation South, 4/2/01)
1. Request for establishment of a Development Committee is submitted with request for review by one or more Advisory Committees.
2. Executive Director adds one or more Advisory Committee’s to review request to ensure review by a minimum of two Advisory Committees and all appropriate discipline areas.
3. Executive Director notifies Administrative Advisors of Advisory Committees to review Development Committee request with web address of request document.
4. Administrative Advisor notifies Advisory Committee members of review request with web address of request document and 2 week deadline for comments.
5. Administrative Advisor compiles Advisory Committee members’ comments and sends them to Executive Director.
6. Executive Director communicates Advisory Committee’s comments to Executive Committee members prior to Development Committee approval discussion and vote.
Multistate Research Project Proposal Review (approved for trial on 3 proposals by agInnovation South, 4/3/01)
1. Advisory Committee’s Administrative Advisor solicits 1 or 2 Advisory Committee members willing to review full proposal and sends their names and email addresses to Executive Director when Development Committee proposal review comments are transmitted.
2. Executive Director communicates Advisory Committee reviewers’ names and email addresses to Development Committee Administrative Advisor along with Development Committee proposal review comments.
3. As part of the proposal peer review process, the Development Committee Administrative Advisor sends proposal electronically to 2-3 Advisory Committee reviewers (different Advisory Committees) with review form.
4. Advisory Committee reviewers assess proposal for relevance, appropriate multi-discipline and multi-function involvement, and scientific quality.
5. Advisory Committee reviewers pay close attention to the following proposal sections:
  1. Statement of the Issue(s) and Justification
  2. Objectives
  3. Measurement of Progress and Results (Outputs, Outcomes and Projected Impact)
  4. Outreach Plan
  5. Projected Participation
6. Development Committee Administrative Advisor receives Advisory Committee reviewers’ comments and communicates them to the Writing Committee and assures that these are addressed in revision of proposal.
7. Development Committee Administrative Advisor sends Advisory Committee reviewers’ comments to Multistate Research Committee Chair along with peer reviewers’ comments and revised proposal.
On motion/second by Drs. Cherry/Young, members approved adoption of Operational Guidelines as presented with modifications discussed above.
On motion/second by Drs. Coston/Morrison, members approved empowering the Executive Committee to adopt future editorial changes and to determine if future operational changes warranted discussion and vote by the full agInnovation South membership.

Agenda Item 8.
Operational Plan

Presenter: William H. Brown and T. J. Helms
Background: During the spring, 2001 meeting, Association members approved the strategic plan which includes an “Operational Plan.” Also approved were implementation strategies for this plan. During the summer, 2001 meeting, the agInnovation South Executive Committee asked for feedback on what body, committee, or individual should be assigned responsibility for accomplishing the objectives of the Operational Plan. The ideas submitted are included with the Operational Plan as submitted below:
agInnovation South OPERATIONAL PLAN
2000 – 2005
The following goals, with associated objectives, will be pursued by the agInnovation South over the next five years to improve the operations of the agInnovation South in its mission to facilitate research of the member agricultural experiment stations. These goals and objectives were modified and/or adopted from the 1999-2003 ESCOP Strategic Plan and in so doing, the agInnovation South will support the strategic initiatives outlined in that plan.
Goal 1. Improve the effectiveness of agricultural research.
Objective 1: Share research management approaches and successful leadership experiences through professional development programs, seminars, workshops, and in other ways.

A primary responsibility of the Executive Committee (incl. Executive Director) – program committee.
Workshops are needed for new Directors and Department Heads who serve as administrative advisers. The SAAS meeting or perhaps our summer meeting might be good time to schedule such.

In meeting discussion: Consider having a 1/2 day workshop for new directors included in the September workshop. Dr. Helms is to talk with other EDs and ESCOP Executive Committee. It might also be helpful to have a separate meeting during SAAS for shorter, region specific issues. This meeting could include directors and department heads for discussion of issues including Administrative Advisor duties.
Objective 2: Develop improved performance and accountability measures to better assure scientific quality and research relevance.

A primary responsibility of the Multistate Research Committee

Objective 3: Develop, maintain, and share methods for assessing the impacts of research.

One of the primary responsibilities of SERA-IEG-28.

In meeting discussion: Would a task force be helpful to investigate ways to combine efforts of various on-going state analyses? Drs. Brown and Helms will discuss.
Objective 4: Enhance the effective use of the Southern Region’s research capacity (human, fiscal, and physical resources) for solving relevant problems.

A primary responsibility of the Multistate Research Committee.
The scientific capacity analysis based on FFY98 (and soon to be available FFY99) CRIS data bases may provide a useful information.

Objective 5: Appropriately use merit assessment (stakeholders) and peer review (scientists) to ensure the relevance and quality of research activities.

A primary responsibility of the Multistate Research Committee.
Feedback from our stakeholders as suggested under Goal 2, Obj. 3, below and subsequent input from Southern CARET should be utilized in developing our next 5-year plan (2005-2010).

Objective 6: Develop a program portfolio for the Southern Region’s research activities.

A primary responsibility of the Executive Director with assistance from the Multistate Research Committee.

Goal 2. Expand the research capability of the Southern Region’s agricultural experiment stations to respond to stakeholder needs.
Objective 1: Emphasize the development of science-based knowledge and technology through a targeted portfolio of priority multistate, multidisciplinary and multifunctional research activities.

A primary responsibility of all Director members; the Executive Committee and Multistate Research Committee.
Schedule an outside speaker at a future agInnovation South meetings who can lead a critical thinking session (futuring?) about the research needs of the south over the next ten years. End up with a high-priority research agenda..

In meeting discussion: After ESCOP Science Roadmap is released, it was suggested to break out regional priorities.
Objective 2: Develop a “rapid response” process for initiating short-term multistate research activities to address rapidly emerging issues or problems.

The requirements and process for developing rapid response activities are embodied in the new national Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities.

Objective 3: Expand consultation, participatory planning, and stakeholder involvement in program implementation.

A primary responsibility of the Executive Committee.
Establish a stakeholder liaison subcommittee charged with regularly scheduling the appearance of one or more representatives of major stakeholder groups at each agInnovation South meeting to present and discuss their group research needs. Call it a “A Stakeholder Series.”

In meeting discussion: The “major stakeholder groups” mentioned above would include groups such as Cotton Incorporated (CI). An example of the above would be to invite Dr. Andy Jordan, CI to present cotton research needs at an agInnovation South meeting. (Dr. Helms will pursue this.)
Objective 4: Facilitate expanding funding opportunities, including the development of nontraditional sources of funding.

A primary responsibility of all member Directors.

Objective 5: Directly contribute to CSREES’s reporting requirements.

A primary responsibility of the Executive Director.

Objective 6: Support communication of research impacts.

A primary responsibility of the Executive Director.

Goal 3. Expand and reinvigorate our strategic partnerships.
Objective 1: Strengthen partnerships among the member agricultural experiment stations.

A primary responsibility of the Executive Committee.

Objective 2: Develop and enhance partnerships with federal agencies, private laboratories, commodity groups and other non-governmental organizations, including international partners.

A primary responsibility of all member Directors.
Develop a mechanism or procedure analogous to that suggested for Goal 2, Obj. 3.

Objective 3: Foster improved integration of research, extension, and academic programs.

A primary responsibility of all member Directors.
Focus on having at least one joint session at each Southern Land Grant Meeting with teaching, research and extension involved. Have a program of substance (which is easier said than done).

In meeting discussion: agInnovation South members questioned the need for regional land-grant meetings and suggested consideration for a national meeting instead. Dr. Coston, program chair, for the 2001 Southern Land-Grant meeting reported that an effort is being made to involve all regional land-grant entities in identifying substantive issues for the joint session.
Objective 4: Promote collaborations with cross-functional institutes, centers and similar organizations.

A primary responsibility of the Executive Committee (incl. Executive Director) -program committee.

Action Requested: For discussion.

Agenda Item 9.
IR-4 Update

Presenter: Robert Holm
Background:
Issued Strategic Plan 2001-2005

Finalized after significant stakeholder inputs.
Emphasis on Reduced Risk Chemistries, 30 Month Completion Schedule, ornamental and biopesticide efficacy trials, methyl bromide alternatives program, FQPA response and funding priorities.

Partnerships Developed and Expanded

Crop Protection (Chemical and Biopesticide) Industry – management and technical meetings led to enhanced cooperation on new products. Ad Hoc member of Biopesticide Industry Alliance (new trade association).
EPA. Second year of expanded EPA/IR-4 Technical Working Group Meetings (4 held plus a tour) with several initiatives such as Super Crop Group concept, Herndon Summary Tables (saves 2 months review on IR-4 petitions), Minor Crop Advisor to OPP Director, rolling three year workplan and sponsorship with Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) and Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Authority (PMRA) of a Biopesticide Workshop.
Other Regulatory Agencies. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) reviewed an IR-4 residue petition – pilot project with EPA. DPR will review 30 IR-4 residue petitions in 2001. PMRA joint residue programs since 1996 expanded and will lead to ajoint IR-4 residue petition review with EPA in 2001.
Commodity Liaison Committee (CLC). More communications with and involvement by CLC in IR-4 programs.

Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program

Very successful large plot replicated trials on strawberries and tomatoes in Florida and California expanded in 2001.
Excellent industry participation with 15 companies and 16 products including 4 biopesticides.

Program Outreach

IR-4 Newsletter. Winner of State Ag Experiment Station Award and increased printing 37% in 2 years.
Publications. Headquarters staff members had 33 papers, articles and book chapters published and accepted for publication.
Reports. Headquarters staff wrote 34 meeting and trip reports.
Presentations. Headquarters staff gave 59 presentations to various commodity groups, professional societies, companies and conferences.
Web Site. Excellent communication tool.
New Products/Transitional Solution List. Best public information on new technologies for minor crops.

Clearances Obtained

Food Crop. 511 granted by EPA versus 255 in 1999 (previous record) – a 100% increase! Over 5,500 to date in program.
Ornamental. 1,156 obtained versus 851 in previous record year in 1996. Over 8,800 to date in program.
Biopesticide. 56 obtained and over 200 to date in program.

Action Requested: For information.
In meeting information: A comprehensive briefing booklet was distributed to all participants (copy available upon request) containing information about the IR-4 programs, IR-4 Strategic Plan for FY2001-2005, economic benefits of minor crops, etc. Dr. Holm indicated that minor crops are worth $40 billion dollars to the U.S. economy and make up about 40% of the total value of all U.S. crops. Minor crops comprise less than 300,000 acreas each but are of high value and high visibility.

Agenda Item 10.
Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Report

Presenter: Craig Tucker
Background: Craig Tucker, Director of the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC), located in Stoneville, MS, will provide an update of Center activities.
Action Requested: For information.
In meeting discussion: A few highlights of Dr. Tucker’s slide presentation are:

SRAC is one of five regional centers. Others are Northeast, Northcentral, Western, and Tropical/Subtropical CTSA. Funding of $4 million in 1992 was split between the five centers.
A key to the success of the centers is that the program is driven by industry needs, which are identified and developed at the local level. Benefits of this are that decision making is local, the process is long and deliberative which ensures strong projects, and that the best talents within a region can be identified to work on selected projects.
Administrative overhead for SRAC, at about 16%, is the lowest of all the regions.
Projects are issue oriented, rather than species oriented.
Average funding is $600,000 per project for an average 3-year rotation; average 14 scientists per project.

Agenda Item 11.
CSREES Update

Presenter: George Cooper
Background:
Quarterly Administrator’s Update
Prepared for the agInnovation South Meeting
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
April 1-4, 2001
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RESCISSION
Section 1403 of the FY 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides for a 0.22 percent government-wide rescission on all discretionary programs. The rescission will be applied to all CSREES discretionary programs (formula programs, special and competitive grants, and other programs) and will result in a reduction of $2,159,436. This brings the appropriation for CSREES in FY 2001 for research and education, extension, and integrated programs to 979,403,564. The rescission will not be applied to mandatory programs such as the Fund for Rural America, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, Community Food Projects and CSREES funded programs under the Ag Risk Protection Act. Discussions are still on-going between the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the USDA-Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA), and the USDA-Office of General Counsel on whether or not to apply the rescission against the Native American Endowment Fund. We hope this question is resolved quickly but do not have a firm date by which it will be resolved. Because there are still outstanding issues to be resolved we do not have final paperwork from OMB and OBPA that officially provides our funding levels.
We will provide additional information as allocation decisions are available. Specific guidance will be available on the CSREES Web Page.
NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION CONFERENCE
The Agriculture in the Classroom 2001 National Conference “Corn, Beans, and City Scenes” will be held June 27-30, in Chicago, Illinois at the Hyatt Regency Chicago on the Riverwalk. Co-sponsored by USDA’s Ag in the Classroom Program and the Illinois Farm Bureau, this conference is focused on renewing teaching expertise and positively influencing curriculum development and teaching techniques. Conference information and registration materials may be found on-line at www.agintheclassroom.org.
Contact: Henry Bahn (hbahn@reeusda.gov) or by telephone on 202-720-1973
HEALTHY PEOPLE…HEALTHY COMMUNITIES NATIONAL INITIATIVE
This National Extension Initiative maintains a web site at www.nnh.org.
CALL FOR PEER REVIEWERS
CSREES’ Higher Education Program is seeking faculty and scientists at 1890 Universities who are interested in participating in the 2001 proposal review process. Nominations and expressions of interest should include name, institutional affiliation, information about areas of expertise, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address.
Contact: E. Jordan (ejordan@reeusda.gov)
2001 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS’ MEETING
Scheduled for Norfolk, Virginia, April 23-26. The agenda is prepared for directors, program administrators, business officers and others involved in managing federal programs funded through CSREES. The agenda will include diverse topics of interest, including the implementation of the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act (AREERA) requirements, 1994 programs management, and other diverse topics of interest impacting program and fiscal management. Information will be distributed to directors and administrative officers shortly.
Contact: Ellen Danus (edanus@reeusda.gov)
SEARCH FOR PANEL MEMBERS
The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) is seeking to identify faculty, particularly from the 1890 universities who are interested in participating in the competitive grants proposal review process. All interested individuals should contact: Ed Kaleikau, Plants/Markets and Trade (ekaleikau@reeusda.gov); Peter Johnson, Animals/Nutrition and Food Safety (pjohnson@reeusda.gov); and Jeff Conrad, Natural Resources/Enhancing Value (jconrad@reeusda.gov).
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR) GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
SBIR provides support to small businesses for research projects in a variety of areas related to agriculture, including rural and community development. Applications are encouraged from minority businesses. Universities can be subcontractors or consultants under project guidelines, and can receive up to one-third of the award from a Phase-I grant and one-half of the award under a Phase II grant. More information can be obtained from the SBIR web site at: www.reeusda.gov/sbir. Contact: Charles Cleland (ccleland@reeusda.gov)
2001 HIGHER EDUCATION GRANT ANNOUNCEMENTS
For additional information visit the web page at www.reeusda.gov/serd/hep/hep.htm
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFOS)
The public comment period ends May 2 on an EPA proposed rule to revise and update two regulations that address impacts on water quality of manure, wastewater, and other process waters generated by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOS).
The two regulations are the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NODES) provisions that define which operations are CAFOS and establish permit requirements, and the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for feedlots (beef, dairy, swine and poultry subcategories), which establish the technology-based effluent discharge standards for CAFOS.
EPA is also proposing to revise effluent guidelines applicable to beef, dairy, swine, and poultry operations that are defined as CAFOS, pursuant to the NODES revisions. The proposed effluent guidelines include regulations for both new and existing animal feeding operations that meet the definition of a CAFOS. These effluent guidelines revisions do not alter the requirements for horses, ducks, sheep or lambs.
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON CAFOS PROPOSAL
EPA is conducting eight public meetings on the new proposed regulations. The purpose of these meetings is to enhance public understanding of the proposal – not to be a mechanism for submitting formal comments. Meeting dates and locations are March 1 in Baltimore, MD; March 7 in Ames, IA; March 13 in Riverside, CA; March 15 in Fort Wayne, IN; March 20 in Dallas, TX; March 22 in Chattanooga, TN; March 27 in Denver, CO; and March 29 in Boise, ID. For complete information on the meetings, proposal background, and how to submit formal comments, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2001/January/Day-30/w1976.htm
EPA PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY
April 27 is the deadline for public comment on the EPA Draft Public Involvement Policy. When this policy is finalized, it will apply to the Agency’s programs and regions and guide EPA staff on effective public involvement methods. See http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/policy.htm.
THE COMMISSION ON 21ST CENTURY PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE FINAL REPORT
The Commission was created by the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act to identify the appropriate role of the federal government in production agriculture following expiration of the FAIR Act in 2002. Its final report, “Directions for Farm Policy: The Role of Government in Support of Production Agriculture, ” is on the web: http://www.usda.gov/oce/21st-century/index.htm. Both House and Senate Agriculture Committees have begun the process of writing the 2002 Farm bill with recent hearings on the report.
ECOP FORESTRY LIAISON TEAM
The Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) established a Forestry Liaison Team to assist the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) advance research, extension and higher education central to forestry and other natural resource issues. The team is chaired by Dr. Nancy Bull – CT. Other members include: Drs. Jones – AL, Bagent – LA, O’Conner – WI, Nakawasa – AK, and Heard – MO (Lincoln University). Assisting with the effort is Drs. Reed -Assistant Dean College of Forestry – OR, Hopper – Head Department of Forestry and Wildlife – TN, Archey – MA State Forester, and Broderick – Extension Forester – CT. The Liaison team adopted the June 2000 National Forestry Coalition Report “A National Investment in Sustainable Forestry: Addressing the Stewardship of Nonfederal Forestlands through Research, Education, and Extension/Outreach” as their basis of operation and have placed in motion a series of networking events and issue identification discussions and writings.
ARMENIA INITIATIVE
U.S. university faculty and students have worked on the Armenia Agricultural and Marketing Assistance Project. Approximately $7.3 million will be available to create stability and peace through agricultural development. Over eight years 145 faculty and students have been involved.
Contact: Trina Gunn (tgunn@reeusda.gov)
CURRENT RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM (CRIS)
CRIS has moved from the National Agricultural Library Building in Beltsville, MD to the Waterfront Center. The new mailing address is 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 2270, Washington, D.C. 20250-2270. Federal Express and overnight deliveries should be addressed to USDA/CSREES/CRIS, Suite 1900, 800 9th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024. The new telephone number is 202-690-0119. The World Wide Web address has also been changed: http://cris.csrees.usda.gov.
As a result of data provider requests, two new data fields will be added to the CRIS database to assist universities in reporting and documenting integrated activities (research and/or extension). A new field will be available to help document integrated research and extension efforts. The record will allow up to six extension personnel cooperating on the research project to be added. A second field “collaborative activity”, will be available to document other partners in the research effort, including federal agencies, international organizations, and others.
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS INFORMATION SYSTEM (REEIS)
REEIS is pleased to announce that detailed system development is underway in Phase 1. Focus is on data integration of selected sources to support functions associated with financial management, strategic planning and performance management of both USDA and customer organizations. Primary customers initially targeted include budget analysts, managers and legislative affairs analysts. Included in this activity is the design and partial implementation of a web front end to permit subject oriented navigation and access to REEIS via user profiles, as well as access to the REEIS database catalog, web links, and individual databases.
Twelve source systems have been selected as candidates for inclusion in Phase 1. Most include financial information, and several include performance information. Data standards (i.e. definitions, formats, and business rules) are being developed for key date entities associated with program and project management, performance management, and budget preparation and execution. This scheme will allow consistent and broad access to program information.
Specific activities to be completed include development of requirements and web design, creation and validation of a detailed REEIS data model; capture of source system business rules, developing and validating data standards, development of an Research, Education and Economics (REE) classification scheme, purchase, installation and testing of hardware and software and development of cleansing tables using standards.
CSREES FELLOWSHIP ANNOUNCEMENT
The announcement will go out shortly to eligible institutions (University of the District of Columbia, 1890 Universities, 1994 Universities, Hispanic Serving Universities and Land-Grant institutions in the U.S. Territories) describing opportunities for faculty to spend the summer of 2001 in Washington, DC in a mentoring experience with CSREES staff. The announcement will be mailed to Administrators and will be posted on the CSREES Web page.
Contact: Mildred Taylor (mtaylor@reeusda.gov)
CSREES PROGRAM REVIEWS
Information on the FY 2002 review cycle and procedures will be mailed to research, education and extension directors by March 1, 2001. This guidance will allow reviews to be scheduled for the period October 1, 2001 – September 30, 2001.
Contact: Rosa Monroe (rmonroe@reeusda.gov)
IFAFS 2001 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER
On February 23 the Federal Register published the 2001 Request for Proposals (RFP) for most of the programs under CSREES’ Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). The amount available for support of this program in FY 2001 is approximately $113,400,000. Those who plan to submit a proposal must first submit a letter of intent by March 23, 2001. Project proposals must be received by April 23, 2001. Because of cooperative relationships developed with other governmental agencies, RFPs in microbial genomics and geospatial and precision technologies will be published separately. The IFAFS program has undergone several changes since its inception in FY 2000, based on experiences gained last year, shifts in the CSREES portfolio of programs, and new opportunities.
For 2001, there will be no distinction made for grants of varying size and budget. The maximum grant level remains at $5 million in most programs, but the distinctions between consortia and standard grants are removed. Review panels last year noted that all IFAFS grants were expected to be multidisciplinary and multifunctional, regardless of size. As such, all grants should address the management and organizational structure proposed. As before, the budget requested must reflect the work proposed and the complexity of the problem or situation being addressed. There is no program-wide goal for sizes of grants this year but there is an expectation that funding requests will range widely depending on the project proposed.
A new category of grants is offered called Critical or Emerging Issues. Proposals in this category may be submitted through June 1, 2001, but they must identify the issue being addressed and make strong justification for inclusion. Issues must be focused on the general subject areas of IFAFS but must approach the work in a manner not covered by the RFP. It is expected that very few proposals will qualify for review under this latter category, and it may be that none will be funded. The issue addressed must be truly critical, and the approach to solution must be unique.
In anticipation of future collaboration with the National Science Foundation, CSREES is initiating a new IFAFS program this year. Multi disciplinary Graduate Education Trainee ship (MGET) Grants proposals are sought that identify opportunities for new graduate programs involving two or more departments and disciplines. Grants of $2.2 million are proposed, with most of the funding targeted toward student support. Degree programs or training opportunities must address the food and agricultural sciences, and meet clearly identified needs of national significance. Stipulations and conditions identified in the program description in the RFP should be carefully considered prior to submitting a proposal, as the number of grants in this area is limited this year. Proposals for MET grants must be received by April 23, 2001. Copies of the full RFP may be downloaded from the IFAFS home page http://www.reeusda.gov/ifafs) or from the February 23 Federal Register.
For further information, applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact the program director listed in the program areas found in the program area description section, or RODNEY FOIL, IFAFS Director (phone: 202-720-4423; e-mail: rfoil@reeusda.gov) or SALLY ROCKEY, Deputy Administrator, CRGAM (phone: 202-401-1761; mail: rockey@reeusda.gov).
2001CSREES FELLOWS PROGRAM NOW OPEN FOR APPLICATIONS
CSREES invites applications for the 2001 Fellows Program, which offers faculty and staff affiliated with designated land-grant universities the opportunity to work and study with federal staff in Washington, DC, during the summer. Since the program’s inception in 1992, more than 30 individuals have participated. Any extension faculty or staff member affiliated with an 1890 or 1994 land-grant institution, Tuskegee University, or the land-grant institutions in American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Micronesia, North Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands may apply, including those who applied in previous years and were not selected. Nominations are also welcomed.
While in Washington, DC, the Fellows will receive an orientation and work on projects relevant to their interests and agency needs, in collaboration with a USDA advisor/mentor. CSREES will furnish travel expenses to and from Washington, DC, per diem expenses ($23 for meals and incidentals and up to $68 for lodging), plus daily commuting costs. CSREES also provides each Fellow with an office, secretarial support, computer training, and opportunities for professional development. The sending institution will continue to pay salary and benefits. CSREES will be able to support approximately five fellows during summer 2001.
Applications and nominations are due by April 5, 2001. A letter of concurrence and support from the applicant’s director, administrator, or president must accompany the application. A panel will review the applications and make selections on the basis of individual interests and the needs of sending institutions and CSREES.
For application forms and further information, contact MILDRED TAYLOR in CSREES’ Partnerships unit (phone: 202-720-5623; e-mail: mtaylor@reeusda.gov).
CSREES CIVIL RIGHTS STAFF MOVES TO WATERFRONT CENTRE
The offices of CSREES’ Civil Rights unit moved last month to the Waterfront Centre (800 Ninth St. S.W., Washington, DC 20024). Staff phone numbers and e-mail addresses did not change. This move completes the move of CSREES units to the 4-story renovated Waterfront Centre, which began in June 1999. The building is about a quarter mile southeast of the USDA South Building.
VENEMAN NAMES DALE MOORE AS CHIEF OF STAFF
Agriculture Secretary ANN M. VENEMAN recently named DALE MOORE, former Executive Director for Legislative Affairs at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as Chief of Staff to the Secretary. Moore served as legislative director of the House Committee on Agriculture, playing a role in the formulation and passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. He also served as the Agriculture Committee’s Republican Legislative Coordinator and the Minority Counsel for the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture. Moore is a native of southwest Kansas.
MULTISTATE RESEARCH PROJECT CITED
A multistate research project on family businesses, “Family Business Viability in Economically Vulnerable Communities,” has won the USDA Northeastern Regional Agricultural Experiment Station Directors Research Award for Excellence. Organized as NE- 167, the project includes faculty members from 12 land-grant institutions who have collaborated since 1987 on research to examine the economic impact of family businesses on the national, state, and local economies. They have found, for example, that more than 18 million U.S. households (almost 14 percent of the total) own at least one business and together represent about half of both the nation’s gross domestic product and total wages.
They have quantified the economic and social contributions of family businesses, developed Extension materials for business owners, families and policy makers, and produced numerous academic publications on family functioning, management and business viability. The research documents that business-owning families and their businesses are “dynamic entities of great social and economic value.” The award was presented January 30 at the project’s annual meeting at the University of Maryland, College Park. S.KAY OBENDORF, Associate Dean for Research, Cornell University, is the Administrative Advisor to the project, and SALLY WARD MAGGARD, National Program Leader for Economic and Community Systems, is the CSREES liaison.
PERSONNEL UPDATES:
Cindi Dickerson is Director of the Research, Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS). Her experiences includes 16 years in the federal government, where she managed data integration and system development projects for the Federal Aviation Administration, and the General Services Administration. She holds a B.A. in history and M.A. in international affairs.
Trina Gunn is International Programs Specialist in the International Programs Office. She is responsible for developing agreements with university partners in support of overseas projects and supporting new foreign initiatives. She completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Virginia and Master’s degree in International Development Studies from the University of London.
Deborah Cahalen is joining SERD through a Diplomacy Fellowship through the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is professor of Anthropology at the State University of New York at Binghamton, and specializes in economics and politics of post-socialist privatization’s. Her goal is to help strengthen the impact of international programs through impact assessment strategies and case studies.
Rodney Brown, Professor and Dean, College of Agriculture, Utah State University, has begun an assignment in Washington,D.C. with the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). He will participate in the review of proposals that respond to NASA’s recent National Research Announcement: Carbon Cycle Science and Related Opportunities in Biology and Biogeochemistry of Ecosystems and Applications. In addition, Dr. Brown will work with NASA to expand the Space Grant/Land Grant program in geospatial extension. Upon completion of his time with NASA, Dr. Brown will join NRE to further strengthen the linkages between USDA and its partners with NASA.
Eric Norland, Ohio State University, will join CSREES/NRE for a 6 month IPA assignment. He will focus on conservation and forestry issues.
Charles Krueger, Penn State University, has rejoined NRE on a part-time shared faculty agreement and will continue certain of the programs set in motion by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations/CSREES National Environmental Initiative (SUNEI).
Retirements: In December and January, CSREES said farewell to Don Nelson, NPL for Wood Science, Jim Miller, NPL for Fish and Wildlife, Andy Weber, Program Leader for Chesapeake Bay Program and McKinley Mayes, Coordinator of 1890 Programs.
Note: Information compiled quarterly by the Partnerships Unit based on submissions by CSREES Executive Council and their staff.
Action Requested: For information.
In meeting discussion: Dr. Cooper highlighted the following topics:

Recission of .22%
Administrative Officers meeting – need dialogue between administrative officers and experiment station program managers. Encouraged some Directors to attend the meeting. When submitting reports, Dr. Cooper’s advice for all is to “err on the side of simplicity”!
Notice regarding Federal guidance should appear soon in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period.
The agency will be having formal interviews in May for the position of Assistant Administrator.
Match requirements – (referred to March memo).
March 27 Senate hearings were summarized in the recent CSREES Administrators’ update.
Appointments are being finalized by Secretary Veneman.

Agenda Item 12.
ARS

Presenter: James Coppedge for Charles Onstad
Background: An update on ARS activities will be provided.
Action Requested: For information.
In meeting discussion: A few highlights of Dr. Coppedge’s report are:

A new peer review system was recently implemented:
- Every project is peer-reviewed at least every 5 years.
- Review panel consists of a majority of non-ARS personnel.
- Oversight is provided by a 30-member REE panel.
For each of the 22 national programs, stakeholder meetings identify priorities and actions plans.

Agenda Item 14.
ARS

Presenter: Terry Nipp (via teleconference)
Background: An update on the Farm Bill, budget, and other activities will be discussed.
Action Requested: For information.
In meeting discussion: Dr. Nipp highlighted the following:

Farm Bill – House and Senate are underway with testimony. Senate held hearing on April 2 on the REE title. Panelists included Colein Hefferan, Floyd Horn, Dave Chicoine, Bobby Phills, and Vic Lectenberg. Senator Lugar recognized and supported the effort for double funding. AESOP staff is looking at each title and searching for ways to integrate REE.
Budget – House Budget Committee adopted the outline of President Bush’s proposal; Senate starting April 2.
Continuing to watch major issues, including:
- Ag and Environmental issues, such as Animal Waste Management – EPA will not rescind TMDL regulation, but they have extended the deadline for comment.
- Biomass, Biobased Fuel – keeping track of bills addressing these topics.
- Biotechnology Education
- Communities – President’s budget may focus on telecommunication and next generation e-commerce.
- Elementary/Secondary Education Act
- Science policy – several reports are forthcoming.
C-FAR and NASULGC’s Food and Society Initiative are progressing on track.
Co-FARM’s influence is very positive in support of doubling the base funding.
DOE’s RFP on Future of Agriculture, specifically regarding Biomass/BioFuel, should be released soon. (Stan Johnson is a good contact for this.)

Agenda Item 15.
Southern Region Data Support System

Presenter: Jay Ritchie
Background: Data management and Visualization techniques will be presented by Jay Ritchie, director of the Southern Region Data Support System project at the Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University. Utilizing CRIS data and other sources of agriculture data, data mining and aggregation approaches will be used to look at national and regional research. Additional visualizations will be included in the presentation providing examples of the techniques and technologies that can be used to explore available datasets, hopefully encouraging continued growth in the use of the Southern Region Data Support System to meet the region’s information needs.
Action Requested: For information.
In meeting discussion: Membership requested that RPA data by national goal be made available. Drs. Helms and Brown are to work with Jay Ritchie to identify the best format for the data.

Agenda Item 16.
Information Management and Support System (IMSS)

Presenter: T. J. Helms
Background: Considerable discussion has occurred with CSREES administrators on the potential for development of a “paperless management system” for multistate research projects and CRIS prior to and following passage of the AREERA of 1998. Since it appeared that further developments in this area were not forthcoming from within the Agency, the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) directed their Executive Director, Dr. David MacKenzie, to develop an information management and support system (IMSS). This system was completed during the summer of 2000 and implemented for the Northeastern Region. Recently, CSREES declined to support a proposal to establish a national system patterned after the NERA IMSS; thus, the potential use of the NERA system as a partial solution to assist in the management of regional projects in each of the regions was again brought up for discussion. The North Central, Southern and Western Executive Directors encouraged David MacKenzie to develop a proposal for consideration by the Directors within their respective regions. That proposal is appended hereto.
To view the system on the NERA web-site, use the following URL: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/. Then, select “Multistate Research Activities Paperless Management System” or type in the following URL: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/userforms/nera/index.html.
The North Central and Western Director’s Associations committed to participate in this activity during their recent spring meetings. Additional information related to these actions and other recommendations related to the system will be distributed as hand-outs.
Summary of Proposed Costs: An initial cost of $7000 per region (assuming that CSREES Partnership Office makes no contribution) will support the system through September, 2001. Operating costs projected for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002, are $7100 per region . Subsequently, the annual costs will be primarily rental on the server from the University of Maryland ($2400 per year for the four regions to split, i.e., $600 per region per year). [Additional assessments will not be required to support agInnovation South’s participation.]
Action Requested: Authorize participation in the IMSS.
A PROPOSAL FOR
LOW COST IMPLEMENTATION OF AN
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT SYSTEM
FOR THE
MULTISTATE RESEARCH PORTFOLIOS
By
David R. MacKenzie and Rubie Mize
with assistance from Daryl Lund and Madelyn Alt
Introduction
The adoption of new national guidelines for multistate research activities in September 2000 represented a major organizational and procedural step forward in meeting the multistate research requirements specified in the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act (AREERA) of 1998. To implement the processes specified in those guidelines the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) launched a special initiative. This initiative, designed, developed and beta-tested a World Wide Web (WWW) mediated computer software program that has in the past been referred to erroneously as a “paperless management system”. But the system is more than the avoidance of paper transactions. This software is a comprehensive Information Management and Support System (IMSS) that fulfills multiple research management support tasks.
The system is crafted in the ColdFusion, a complete Web design and application technology used in e-commerce. It has been beta-site tested. Region-wide training has been offered. The system is now fully operational on an Oracle platform hosted at the University of Maryland. The software has been named the NE Multistate Research Information Management and Support System (NE MRIMSS). All transactions in NE multistate research activities are now supported by this system. And all NE multistate research documents, all of the project-associated information archives, and all reported research outcomes and impacts are organized within and retrievable from this database.
So just what does this new system do?
The NE MRIMSS:

Assists project participants in the creation of a multistate research project:

Past Procedure: The investigators were directed to the “Multistate Research Manual” on the association’s web site, and the national guidelines at the ESCOP web site. Oftentimes little if any assistance was available to them beyond this referral.
New System: All forms and procedures are clearly outlined in the step-by-step procedure for creating a multistate research project development. Everything is accomplished electronically, including peer review and MRC evaluation.

Supports the management of the project proposal peer review processes.

Past Procedure: The administrative advisor (AA) and multistate research committee (MRC) subject the resulting proposal to the peer review and selection processes
Scientific review is done by the AA, NCA(s), and MRC (they may call upon expertise to accomplish the review). Today, in most cases, the individual associations accomplish this process electronically. And, there is commonly a required form but no formal template for the scientific review.
New System: All forms and procedures are clearly outlined, including the routing of documents to reviewers, and the generation of electronic letters-of-notification as various steps are initiated or completed.

Supplements the management-decision making processes of the regional associations:

Past Procedure: The MRC assigns a lead reviewer for each proposal. Then, as a result of those reviews and any revisions the MRC makes a recommendation to the member directors. All regional association web sites have the title, objectives and participating states for each sponsored project and a link to the project’s home page, if there is one. After a project is approved by the association, if a Director wants specific information on a project in which they do not have a participant, he/she would ask the AA, the chair of the project, or the regional office for the information.
New System: A portfolio of documents is created for each project that contains all pertinent information on a project. Contained in each portfolio are the project outline (either draft or Official, as the case may be), peer reviewers comments, annual meeting minutes, SAES-422 reports, participants (as reported through Appendix E forms), any other attachments that have been provided, and links to the CRIS classification scheme and CRIS forms. This portfolio of information is available to each Director, for her use when preparing for a meeting, planning station budgets, reviewing proposals for approval, or when reporting outcomes and impacts, as the information is permanently available through the association’s home page.

Provides administrative advisors with project management support:

Past Procedure: AAs were responsible for all administrative follow up with the project. This included timely notification of report deadlines and the content of those reports.
New System: Letters are generated electronically for the AA and chair of the MRP for all notices of actions, as well as to CSREES and the national SAES list server, if appropriate. Examples of these communications would include notices of meeting authorizations, submission of SAES-422, etc.

Links to the Current Research Information System (CRIS) for non-financial data:

Past Procedure: Directors currently have a link through the various associations’ web site to the CRIS system. But not all of these sites contain all of the forms that are routinely sent by a station into the USDA CRIS system.
New System: All non-financial forms submitted to CRIS are contained in the system and are accessible for use by password-authorized personnel.

Protects critical management decisions with passwords:

Past Procedure: For the most part the regional associations’ web sites are open to the public. The Southern Associations is the primary exception, wherein a password protects some of their pages. For the other regional associations however, there is no protected information in the system.
New System: Access to the system data is restricted to those who are authorized. Decisions on access are made and authorized by the system manager, who is currently Rubie Mize of NERA.

Permits project-by-project reporting of research results:

Past Procedure: Each research project must prepare an annual report of progress and minutes of meetings and project accomplishments (SAES-422). This report is submitted to the regional office. This report is then forwarded to the Partnership Office, with a hard copy retained by the responsible regional office. Form AD-421 is submitted directly to CRIS by each participating SAES. Form AD-421 is not now retained in a centralized, regional database, either electronically or in hard copy.
New System: All report forms are retained in the system’s database, and are accessible to those with password clearance.

Facilitates impact reporting across the entire multistate research portfolio:

Past Procedure: Regional associations currently vary on the extent to which they develop impact statements for their multistate project portfolios. Furthermore, few have access to the completed Form SAES-422s, some of which are hard copy and some are electronic copy.
New System: Impact statements for MRP are readily and easily generated from the project- and station-reported forms that are now retained by the regionally organized system.

Satisfies AREERA requirements by allowing participation of Extension scientists to be captured and recorded using the new form, Appendix E:

Past Procedure: Previous to the development of the national Guidelines for Multistate Research, no process existed for recording Extension’s participation in integrated activities, except through records of meeting minutes and annual reports, where names and affiliations of participants had been recorded.
New System: The new system records Extension participation through the form referred to as “Appendix E” and automatically computes and displays the percentage participation of research and Extension personnel.

Facilitates record-keeping for individual stations:

Past Procedure: MRP records are kept at CRIS, but searching can be cumbersome. A station has to perform several searches to locate the information. Summaries are not available.
New System: All MRP documents: project outline, SAES-422 annual reports/minutes, participants (SY, PY, TY) and their corresponding RPA, SOI and FOS are all permanently recorded in the system and can be retrieved anytime by project, by station/state, or by scientist, or any combination of RPA, SOI, and FOS.

Requests for use of the Software:
Requests from other SAES regional associations to share the software has led to discussion on how that might be accomplished. The most desirable deployment of the system would be as an integrated component of CRIS, operated on their computer, and serviced by their staff as a national MRIMSS. However, this approach would require major redesign of the program, substantial structural changes, and considerable software reprogramming. The Chair of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) McArthur Floyd sent a request to Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) Administrator Colien Hefferan in January 2001 proposing implementation of a national information management and support system for all multistate research activities. At the Baltimore Partnership meeting in February 2001 Administrator Hefferan acknowledged receiving the request, but declined to fund the project because of the projected costs.
As an alternative to developing a national IMSS the regional SAES Executive Directors have been exploring a low cost region-by-region implementation strategy. What has emerged is a proposal that would build on the NE-developed software, preserve interregional commonality, and allow program customization to accommodate the acknowledged regional differences in implementing the national multistate research guidelines.
Conditional Agreement:
Subject to approval by NERA’s leadership, we are offering the software at no cost to the other regions, with the following conditions. To preserve the ability to move across the databases, the regional customization of the software needs to be done by a central entity. To assure ready access to the preserved information broad agreement is needed on the reorganization and reformatting of the databases’ contents. To reduce computer service and maintenance costs the regional databases should be co-located and serviced by the same entity.
The rationale for offering the software at no cost to the other regions is derived from the acknowledged benefits of having everyone operating in a common information system. Recovery of the association’s investments expended so far are thus foregone by NERA, in the interest of establishing a set of common, regionally-organized information management systems.
A Low Cost Proposal:
The NE IMSS software was developed by Mrs. Rubie Mize and programmed by Ms. Natalie Moy, an undergraduate student at the University of Maryland. Both individuals have direct and intimate knowledge on the program and both would be valuable in customizing the software to meet regional needs.
Natalie graduates from the University of Maryland in May. However, she has indicated a willingness to remain in a full time position on this project until September 30, 2001, to provide the anticipated software-customization services. NERA will release a portion of Rubie Mize’s time to manage the system’s implementation during the next 6 months, at no cost to the activity. The University of Maryland will provide computer storage space on their Oracle platform sufficient for the four region’s needs for $200.00 per month.
This proposed region-by-region activity would not give the benefits of creating a CRIS-integrated national multistate research information management and support system. And, it would not include CSREES as a partner in its development, at this point. However, the anticipated costs for creation and operation are substantially less by this plan, than for a nationally organized system.
Proposed Budget I (Implementation 3/1/01 to 9/30/01):

Student worker hourly pay for Natalie Moy (March 1 to May 15) (20 hours per week at $10.00/hr.)	$ 2,000
Salary for Natalie Moy: (May 15 to September 30, 2001) (@$45,000/year)	$15,577
Fringe benefits @ 26%	$ 4,050
Subtotal:	$21,627
Computer Services @ $200/month (March 1 to September 30)	$ 1,400
Workshops and training services to regions	$ 5,000
Total:	$28,027
Shared regional costs (assumes all four regions are participating)	$ 7,000

Proposed Budget II (Annual Operation) (costs after September 30, 2001)
Subsequent services for the system and its maintenance after September 30, 2001 (which are at this point our best guesses) are offered below. The preferred model would be to provide centralized services for software adjustments, customizations, and enhancements for the four regions to assure adequate follow-up to implementation and continued computer access and retrieval for stored information for a subsequent period of 12 months.
The University of Maryland’s Office of Information Technology has informed us that they can provide on a sustained basis computer storage space, program operation, and Oracle support services at $200 per month (or $2400 /year) for all four databases. We propose that the direct costs for computer storage space, program operation, and Oracle support services will be shared equally by the four participating associations.
We are further proposing that we budget the following for FFY 2002 (i.e., October 1 2001 to September 30, 2002):

Consulting services for software maintenance:	$ 20,000
Follow-up to training services:	$ 6,000
Computer capacity services:	$ 2,400
Total Annual Cost	$28,400
Shared Cost (per region)	$ 7,100

Subsequent years should be less costly, and should represent mostly the cost of computer space and occasional software consulting services, as needed. But at this time cost estimates are not available, and will mostly depend on regional demands for services.
Timing:
To launch this four-region activity we need a decision as soon as possible to gain, in turn, an employment agreement with Natalie Moy. We have set March 15, 2001 as the deadline for this decision.
As an alternative, NERA is open to having another region serve as the host for this multi-regional IMSS.
END OF PROPOSAL 2/28/01
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Scifres and Fischer, membership supported the recommendation to spend funds in support of the IMSS. The initial $7,000 is to be paid from carryover funds, and the subsequent $7,100 is to included in the FY01/02 budget. It was further agreed that the Southern Region would support the Western region’s suggestion for formation of an oversight committee to carry out pilot testing of this system.

Agenda Item 17.
Formosan Termite Program

Presenter: Greg Henderson and Dennis Ring An informative presentation on the Formosan Subterranean Termite program at LSU covered identification, extent of the problem, treatment options, and management guidelines. A publication entitled “A Guide for Integrated Pest Management of Termites” was distributed.
Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 18.
Report of Chief Operating Officers Meeting

Presenter: William H. Brown
Background: Dr. Brown will report any action taken during the meeting of Chief Operating Officers.
Action Requested: For information.
In meeting discussion: Dr. Brown reviewed the actions taken by the Chief Operating Officers:

Extended the Executive Director’s contract for two years and asked for a 9-month notification of his retirement.
Approved agInnovation South operating budget.
Approved agInnovation South membership in C-FAR.
Asked for a review of activities with the Social Science Research Center.

Agenda Item 19.
Executive Director’s Report

Presenter: T. J. Helms
Background:
General Comments
This report marks the fifth anniversary of my appointment as Executive Director for the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors. As we have during the past five years we have conducted the business of the Association in the manner prescribed by your action in 1996. I sincerely hope we have fulfilled or exceeded every expectation you have of this office.
The Office of the Executive Director is located in Mississippi State University’s Bost Extension Center and continues to be co-located with the Southern Rural Development Center. The Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station serves as the host experiment station for agInnovation South.
As I have remarked in previous reports and reiterate herein, the performance of Anna Marie Rasberry in her role as Assistant to the Executive Director is exemplary. She has maintained excellent working relationships with many members of your staffs, with key USDA/CSREES personnel, with her counterparts in the other regions, and with many others in the NASULGC family. In addition to serving as the webmaster for the Association’s homepage, Anna Marie serves ESCOP in the same capacity. Her mastery of a wide variety of software is constantly revealed in the improvements made in these homepages. In fact, her skills in this area have enabled us to conduct most of our agInnovation South and ESCOP business through electronic means. As always, we invite your comments and suggestions about the format and content of our homepage.
Regional Activities
We have continued to receive and distribute summaries of CRIS data for each of the regions. However, we have discontinued generating the numerous reports for individual experiment stations that were generated in preparation for Plan of Work reporting; however, with sufficient lead time we will respond to any requests you may have for such reports. For your information, CRIS data for FFY ‘99 recently became available.
A considerable amount of time was spent updating our regional supplemental guidelines (“Guidelines for Southern Directors”) for concurrence or compliance with the National Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities. The regional guidelines will be presented for approval during this annual meeting as prescribed by the Association’s By-Laws. With their adoption the By-Laws expanded the membership of the Executive Committee to include the Chair of the Multistate Research Committee.
The Southern Regional Data Support System, agInnovation South’s grant-supported project with the MSU Social Science Research Center (SSRC), continues to function under the direction of Dr. Arthur G. Cosby. The emphasis of the project is communication of information from large, complex data sets (e.g., CRIS data; agricultural census data; etc.) in a visual format to a wide variety of audiences. The project leader, Mr. Jay Ritchie, will again present a special report from this activity during this annual meeting. Funding for the project is scheduled to continue through June 30, 2001. A request for continuation will be presented in conjunction with presentation of the annual budget request for the Office of the Executive Director.
Regional assignments include:
T-STAR (Tropical/Subtropical Agricultural Research Program) administrative group (C-BAG)
Liaison Representative to the Association of Southern Regional Extension Directors
Liaison Representative to the 1890 Association of Research Directors.
Member, Tecoman Cotton Winter Nursery Committee (National Cotton Council)
Joint Cotton Breeding Advisory Committee (National Cotton Council)
Beltwide Cotton Conference Steering Committee
National Activities
After considerable time and effort the national Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities are now complete, having been approved by the Experiment Station Section in September 2000 for implementation on October 1, 2000. In addition to Multistate Research requirements, these guidelines also address the integrated research and extension requirements of the AREERA of 1998. During the past year your Executive Director made presentations on the guidelines to agInnovation South, the USDA/CSREES National Program Leaders, SAAS Department Heads, and the national Animal Science Department Heads group.
The concept of a national “paperless management”system as addressed in the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities probably will not be implemented in the foreseeable future as originally anticipated. However, the four AES regions are collaborating in the development of a regionally-based Multistate Research Information Management Support System which is expected to make our project development processes much easier and more efficient, and greatly enhance our reporting capabilities.
In addition to participation in the regularly scheduled meetings of ESCOP and joint meetings with ECOP, the Executive Directors are holding face-to-face meetings and conference calls on a regular basis and as needed, with the USDA/CSREES Administrator and other leaders within the administration. A National Multistate Research Committee has been organized which includes the four (4) SAES Association Executive Directors, Dr. Sam Donald, Executive Director of ARD, Dr. Myron Johnsrud, Executive Director for Extension, and Dr. George Cooper. This group will meet three times annually with at least one meeting to include our Assistants. Other ESCOP activities include:
Executive Vice Chair
Executive Committee
Chair’s Advisory Subcommittee
Science and Technology Core Committee, Vice Chair
National Multistate Research Coordinating Committee
ESCOP Liaison to the National Forestry CoalitionOther national responsibilities include:USDA/CSREES Plan of Work Advisors Committee
REEIS – Steering Committee (Subcommittee on Needs Assessment — Chair)
REEIS – Chair, Technical Committee
REEIS – Joint Application Design (JAD) Session Coordinator
Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 20.
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)

Presenter: Van Bowersox
Background: An overview of the NADP/NRSP-3 program will be presented.
Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information: A thorough overview of the NADP program was presented. Available publications that were referenced during the presentation are:

2000 Annual Report – NRSP-3/NADP
“Uses of National Atmospheric Deposition Program/ National Trends Network Data, May 1998 to June 1999” by USGS
“Inside Rain – A Look at the National Atmospheric Deposition Program”
“Nitrogen in the Nation’s Rain”
“National Atmospheric Deposition Program – 1999 Annual Summary”
“Atmospheric Environment”
“Inside Rain – Working with Precipitation Chemistry Data” (Grade 9-12 Instruction Packet)

Agenda Item 21.
NRSP-1: Current Research Information System
FY02 Budget Request

Presenter: Eric Young
Justification: A ninety-five thousand dollar increase is requested for the Current Research Information System (CRIS) in order to provide an additional technical support position to fulfil a critical need. CRIS has not had an increase in the operating budget since 1994 and the CRIS staff level was reduced by one person in 1997. Currently the entire senior staff is either already eligible to retire, or will be eligible in the next two years. An increase in funding would establish a new mid level technical position on the CRIS staff which would assist in succession planning. Acquiring the additional staff member now is needed to allow sufficient time for training while current staff are still involved in the program. The knowledge base of the present staff is an irreplaceable resource that has been acquired through many years of experience working within the CRIS program. A new staff member, regardless of technical expertise, cannot acquire the essential insight into the CRIS data environment without extensive interactions with the present staff members. The CRIS staff is diligently striving toward the goal of expanding functionality with the new web-based CRIS environment to furnish the user population direct access to as much research information as possible. But, regardless of the level of technical sophistication achieved with the current software system for CRIS, experienced staff members are needed to assemble data, solve data problems, and interpret the data to assure the integrity of the information made available through the system.

NRSP-1: Current Research Information System
Description	MRF FUNDING			OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Description	Authorized FY00	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02
Salaries	129,852 (2.2 FTE)	$129,852 (2.2 FTE)	$140,977 (2.8 FTE)	$481,380 (9.8 FTE)	$520,889 (10.2 FTE)
Fringe Benefits	32,270	32,270	45,643	132,853	168,642
Wages	0	0	0	0	0
Travel	600	600	1,200	4,500	4,500
Supplies	1,200	1,200	2,130	4,500	7,870
Maintenance	900	900	1,100	3,000	3,900
Equipment/Capital Improvement	4,400	4,400	5,000	15,000	15,000
Other	50,176	50,176	93,200	163,500	120,329
TOTAL	$219,398 (2.2 FTE)	$219,398 (2.2 FTE)	$289,250 (2.8 FTE)	$804,733 (9.8 FTE)	$841,130 (10.2 FTE)

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Young and Cherry, the requested FY02 budget was approved (11/0) without the caveat applied to other NRSPs.

Agenda Item 22.
NRSP-3: The National Atmospheric Deposition Program
FY02 Budget Request

Presenter: n/a
Justification: Off-the-top support from the SAES is used to pay for NADP Program Office activities. In 2002, regional research funds will continue to support the personnel expenses of key Program Office staff members charged with ensuring the continued operation of the deposition monitoring network, ensuring the high quality of the data, and making the data readily accessible to the community of scientists, resource managers, educators, and policy makers. First and foremost, the NADP needs to keep on doing what it does well. On-line requests for NADP data continue to increase. Since electronic record-keeping was initiated in April 1998, the number of data retrievals from the NADP Internet site has doubled to more than 17,000 retrievals per year and the number of maps viewed has climbed to about 145,000 per year. Although every measure of Internet activity has continued to rise, it is the growth in data retrievals that attests to the utility and value of the NADP data archive. Sixty percent of NADP data users report using the data for research purposes and the balance for educational purposes ranging from elementary school to the college level. This demand for long-term, high-quality precipitation chemistry data needs to be met. The NADP remains committed to measuring how human activities and the forces of nature affect precipitation chemistry and the health of our atmosphere.

NRSP-3: The National Atmospheric Deposition Program
Description	MRF FUNDING			OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Description	Authorized FY00	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02
Salaries	102,361 (1.77 FTE)	$106,750 (1.74 FTE)	$109,953 (1.74 FTE)	$272,793 (6.05 FTE)	$277,163 (6.07 FTE)
Fringe Benefits	5,496	6,012	6,192	68,699	70,053
Wages	0	0	0	0	0
Travel	0	0	0	31,863	28,500
Supplies	0	0	0	17,460	18,000
Maintenance	0	0	0	0	0
Equipment/Capital Improvement	0	0	0	0	5,000
Other Direct Costs	5,154	0	0	58,644	54,000
TOTAL	$113,011 (1.77 FTE)	$112,762 (1.74 FTE)	$116,145 (1.74 FTE)	$449,459 (6.05 FTE)	$452,716 (6.07 FTE)

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Fischer and Cherry, the FY02 budget request was approved (12-1) subject to the following caveat: “Using FY 2001 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2002 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”

Agenda Item 23.
NRSP-4: A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses
FY02 Budget Request

Presenter: Neal Thompson
Justification:

NRSP-4: A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses
Description	MRF FUNDING			OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Description	Authorized FY00	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02
Salaries	482,243 (5.0 FTE)	$506,355 (5.0 FTE)	$531,673 (5.0 FTE)	$1,041,884 (22.0 FTE)
Fringe Benefits	0	0	0	250,052
Wages	0	0	0	1,291,936
Travel	0	0	0	190,000
Supplies	0	0	0	60,000
Maintenance	0	0	0	0
Equipment/Capital Improvement	0	0	0	60,000
Other	0	0	0	868,597
TOTAL	$482,243 (5.0 FTE)	$506,355 (5.0 FTE)	$531,673 (5.0 FTE)	$2,470,533 (22.0 FTE)	not available

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Thompson and Arkin, the FY02 budget request was approved (12-1) subject to the following caveat: “Using FY 2001 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2002 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”

Agenda Item 24.
NRSP-5: Develop and Distribute Deciduous Fruit Tree Clones Free of Viruses and Virus-Like Agents
FY02 Budget Request

Presenter: D. C. Coston
Justification:

NRSP-5: Develop and Distribute Deciduous Fruit Tree Clones Free of Viruses and Virus-Like Agents
Description	MRF FUNDING			OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING¹
Description	Authorized FY00	Authorized FY01	Proposed² FY02	Authorized FY01	Proposed² FY02
Salaries	113,570 (2.7 FTE)	$118,113 (2.7 FTE)	$122,837 (2.7 FTE)	$135,390 (4.19 FTE)	$148,839 (4.48 FTE)
Fringe Benefits	35,026	36,427	37,884	44,087	48,763
Wages	38,534	40,075	41,678	8,137	8,462
Travel	5,688	5,916	6,152	1,296	1,348
Supplies(br>(includes facilities and field charges of $22,591 from MRF)	55,514	57,735	60,044	69,334	72,107
Maintenance	0	0	0	25,000³	26,000³
Equipment/Capital Improvement	0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	$248,332 (2.7 FTE)	$258,265⁴ (2.7 FTE)	$268,596 (2.7 FTE)	$283,244 (4.19 FTE)	$305,519 (4.48 FTE)
¹ Other sources of funds include private grants, fees paid for services rendered, and non-reimbursed WSU costs [salaries and maintenance ($ 41,712 per year)]. ² An increase of 4% for salaries for faculty and staff over 2000/01 and approximately a 4% annual increase of costs in most categories over 2000/01. ³ Funds assigned for repair & restoration of screenhouses, greenhouse and growth chambers. ⁴ Does not include supplemental budget request for $25,000 for screenhouse restoration.

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Coston and Jubb, the FY02 budget request was approved (12-0) subject to the following caveat: “Using FY 2001 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2002 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”

Agenda Item 25.
NRSP-6: Interregional Potato Introduction Project
FY02 Budget Request

Presenter: Eric Young
Justification: For 3% SALARY increase in FY 2002: The need is increasing: The size of the collection and associated labor, supplies and upkeep are rising rapidly. We have received flat budgets for the past three years and that money now buys less, since in 2000, Classified employees got a 3% raise, and Academic Staff about an 8% raise.
We propose a 3% increase for salary and labor in FY 2002.

NRSP-6: Interregional Potato Introduction Project
Description	MRF FUNDING			OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Description	Authorized FY00	Authorized FY01^a	Proposed FY02^b	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02^c
Salaries	90,817 (3.3 FTE)	$95,063 (3.3 FTE)	$97,915 (3.3 FTE)	$128,380 (3.1 FTE)	$134,799 (3.1 FTE)
Fringe Benefits	28,040	30,800	31,724	41,097	43,152
Wages	12,000	12,000	10,300	0	0
Travel	4,014	1,000	1,000	8,663	8,000
Supplies	15,569	18,000	25,068	0	0
Maintenance	11,491	5,068	0	0	0
Equipment/Capital Improvement	0	0	0	0	0
US Contribution (est.)	0	0	0	63,525	66,700
TOTAL	$161,931 (3.3 FTE)	$161,931 (3.3 FTE)	$166,007 (3.3 FTE)	$241,665 (3.1 FTE)	$252,651 (3.1 FTE)
^aNo increase authorized but we will have to pay this much due to nondiscretionary staff raises. ^b 3.0% base salary and labor increase ^c estimated up to 5% increase

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Young and Jones, the FY02 budget request was approved (7-6) subject to the following caveat: “Using FY 2001 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2002 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”

Agenda Item 26.
NRSP-8: National Animal Genome Research Program
FY02 Budget Request

Presenter: Jerry Cherry
Justification: NRSP-8 funding supports the coordination and facilitation of genome mapping for five species. The Species Coordinators work closely with the officers and members of the Animal Genome and Species Technical Committees to prioritize the use of these funds to maximize the benefits to the total Animal Genome Project. The host institutions are providing cost sharing that exceeds the NRSP-8 funding. This cost sharing consists primarily of salary for the proportion of permanent faculty and staff time committed to this activity and non-reimbursable overhead (43%) on the NRSP-8 funding. The Administrative Advisors and the Program Leader approve all budgets submitted by the Species Coordinators before the funds are distributed.
Salaries are for technical/professional positions to manage the development of the species genome database, input data, and maintain and operate the database system. Also, technical support is needed for developing and preparing probes, DNA samples, and other biological materials for distribution to Technical Committee members.
Wages are for secretarial and technical support as needed.
Travel is to support the considerable travel required of the Species Coordinators. There are numerous meeting and special symposia being held on various aspect of animal genome mapping to -which the Species Coordinators, as representatives of the National Animal Genome Research Program, are invited speakers and participants. Also, Species Coordinators are available to visit Technical Committee members to provide consultation and assistance. Considerable international travel is required to coordinate the U.S. animal genome research with similar organized research programs in other countries, primarily in Europe and Australia. In some cases, travel of other technical committee members may be supported (particularly if they are officially representing the Technical Committee).
Supplies include office and laboratory supplies, computer supplies, shipping costs and postage.
Maintenance is for service contracts and repair for computer equipment and laboratory equipment used in DNA sample and probe preparation and storage.
Equipment includes computer software and equipment for the genome databases and PCR microsatellite amplifiers.
Other direct costs include consultation on genome database development, newsletters, publications, conducting workshops, preparing DNA samples, primers and probes, telephone, fax and copy costs.

NRSP-8: National Animal Genome Research Program
Description	MRF FUNDING			OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Description	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02*	Proposed FY03	Authorized FY01	Proposed FY02
Salaries	99,021 (3.51 FTE)	$109,263 (3.6 FTE)	$117,289 (3.81 FTE)	$188,802 (3.17 FTE)	$189,871 (2.67 FTE)
Fringe Benefits	27,711	29,645	32,950	48,386	46,817
Wages	24,000	20,000	21,000	3,000	3,000
Travel	60,000	61,700	64,000	0	0
Supplies	102,078	95,122	79,861	8,357	8,000
Maintenance	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000
Equipment/Capital Improvement	11,780	10,000	9,500	0	0
Other Direct Costs	53,310	52,270	53,400	9,000	6,000
Non-Reimbursable Overhead	0	0	0	167,387	163,400
TOTAL	$380,000 (3.51 FTE)	$380,000 (3.6 FTE)	$380,000 (3.81 FTE)	$426,932 (3.17 FTE)	$419,088 (2.67 FTE)
* Allocations to species: cattle (Texas A&M, $60,000); swine (Iowa State, $60,000); poultry (Michigan State, $50,000); sheep (Utah State, $45,000); and equine (Kentucky, $45,000. Allocations for databases: Iowa State, $60,000 and Texas A&M, $60,000.

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Cherry and Knapp, the FY02 budget request was approved (14-0) subject to the following caveat: “Using FY 2001 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2002 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”

Agenda Item 27.
S-009: PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION
Review and FY02 Budget Request

Presenter: Jerry Arkin and Gary Pederson
Background:
SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR YEAR 2000
Genetic resources representing 584 new accessions were received, increasing the total collection maintained at the Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit (PGRCU) to 81,438 accessions. The new introductions represented a broad range of nine families, 24 genera, and 45 species from 28 countries. A total of 3,223 accessions was requested for regeneration from S-9.
There were 548 orders processed containing 49,257 accessions (in-vitro, plants, rhizomes, seeds, canes) with 11% (5,330 accessions) of the accessions being supplied to foreign requesters. A total of 40,327 U.S. distributions were sent to users in the S-9 region. More than 7,261 items were shipped to the National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) for long-term storage or backup. These included warm season grasses (4,636 accessions), peppers (1,711), sorghum (457), cowpeas (160), and clover (93). Overall, 81.3% of the collection has been backed up at NSSL (up from 72.7% in FY99).
More than 360,000 records were created and 130,000 records were modified by site personnel to enhance the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) database. Passport data was updated from old written archived records for more than 11,000 accessions including grasses (6,801 accessions), watermelon (1,644), and okra (3,003).
Accessions distributed by PGRCU were utilized in a vast array of research studies throughout the world. For example, accessions (1,408) of annual clover and special-purpose legumes were sent to researchers throughout the world for research use on forage, salinity tolerance, molecular methods, winter hardiness, production, germplasm enhancement, value added uses, DNA sequencing, green manure, alternative crops, Anthracnose resistance, pharmaceutics, confirmation of genetic stability, condensed tannin studies, pasture legumes utilization, genetic variability, proteomics, dietary fiber variation, archaeology, allelopathic potential of cover crops, oversowing studies, flavonoid synthesis, cytogenetics, cover cropping, mineral nutrition, repelling pests, tissue culture, and variety testing.
Regeneration and characterization was conducted during the past year for a number of crops. Watermelon regeneration was increased by 50% to 150 accessions/year in pollination cages with bees. A total of 1000 accessions of cultivated peanuts were increased and descriptors collected at Byron, GA. A total of 50 cowpea accessions which had not produced seeds in the field were regenerated in the greenhouse, 49 of which produced seeds. There were 200 cowpea accessions planted in the greenhouse for virus testing in preparation for use in regeneration. Of these lines, 108 were transplanted to the field and 62 were grown in the greenhouse due to low available seed or poor germinations. A total of 109 accessions produced seed. In addition, 50 cowpea accessions that had not produced seed in Georgia were grown in the field in Puerto Rico with 31 producing seed. A total of 8,000 tissue cultures comprising the in vitro sweetpotato collection were maintained in growth chambers. There were 33 annual clovers and 290 miscellaneous legumes that were regenerated in the field and greenhouse.
Molecular approaches were used to characterize genetic diversity in cultivated peanuts and subterranean clover. Based on molecular results using AFLP and morphological evaluations of field increases, some accessions of wild peanut appear to be mixtures of Arachis hypogaea var. peruviana and var. aequatoriana. AFLP markers were also being correlated with descriptive data to characterize genetic diversity in subterranean clover accessions. Molecular markers were evaluated for use in prioritizing regeneration of cucurbits.
In order to determine the underlying mechanism affecting genetic instability, the sweetpotato genome was probed for the presence of transposable elements in collaboration with scientists from Louisiana State University. The presence of retrotransposons was revealed in the sweetpotato genome. Maintenance of sweetpotato germplasm could be improved by determining the factors that activate or stabilize these transposable elements.
Core collections were developed for watermelon (251 accessions) and peppers (404 accessions), bringing the total number of crops with core collections to nine: clover (three species:T. alexandrinum, T. resupinatum, T. subterraneum), cultivated peanut, eggplant, okra, mung bean, cowpea, sorghum, watermelon, and peppers.
Further information on accomplishments of the S-9 Multistate Research Project for this year and previous years can be found in annual reports and minutes at the web site (http://www.ars-grin.gov/ars/SoAtlantic/ Griffin/pgrcu/s9.html).
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PLANS FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR (2002)
For the first time in a number of years, the USDA-ARS base funding for the PGRCU was increased. A total of $349,370 was added in permanent funding by USDA-ARS in FY2001. Most recent funding increases greater than $250,000 in USDA-ARS require that an additional research scientist be hired. Due to the lack of operational funds in PGRCU for the past few years, the agency agreed that all funds should be put into operations and technical support.
The addition of new funds and the hiring of a new Research Leader (see summary of personnel actions) has enabled the PGRCU to refocus on its core mission. The reason this Unit exists is to conserve plant genetic resources for future generations. The PGRCU has the responsibility to acquire, characterize, maintain, evaluate, document, and distribute genetic resources of agricultural and horticultural crops; most of which are grown in the southern U.S. The long-term goal of the PGRCU plant germplasm collection is to conserve the complete range of genetic variability in crops of interest and their wild relatives, rather than just trying to obtain the maximum number of accessions. Germplasm collections can no longer afford to maintain duplicate or redundant accessions because of the risk of losing more valuable, unique accessions.
The additional funds are being used to support this core mission and long-term goal in a number of ways. First of all, assigned operating budgets for each curator in FY01 were increased to a current range from $20,000 to $25,000 for supplies and materials. Without this additional funding, operating budgets would have been limited to $5,000 for each curator in FY01. Summer field help has been increased with four workers at Byron, one at Griffin, and one for each curator funded through RSA. This field help will enable the PGRCU to increase the number of accessions regenerated and improve the quality of seed obtained. Seed quantity and quality can be improved by better weed control, more hand pollinations, prompt harvesting, and rapid threshing and cleaning; all of which are highly labor-intensive. A new technician will be hired and equipment purchased to conduct germination tests on the plant germplasm collection. Germination tests have not been conducted at the PGRCU for a number of years due to the lack of funds. Initially all new acquisitions and regenerations will be tested for germination prior to their entry into the collection. Then, over time, germination tests will be conducted on the entire collection to help curators establish regeneration priorities and prevent the loss of valuable genetic resources. Another technician will be hired to help the RL curate the clover collection as well as assisting in planting, harvesting, and processing seed of other crops during peak work periods. Other changes in the program will be made as the RL becomes more familiar with specific crop needs identified by users, Crop Germplasm Committees, and S-9 Technical Committee members.
Another area that the PGRCU will concentrate on in FY02 will be the identification and elimination of duplicate and redundant accessions. Duplicate accessions not only waste storage space, handling time, and regeneration efforts for the PGRCU, but they also waste time for users who expect to evaluate unique rather than identical accessions. Duplicates will be identified through extensive evaluation of passport data as well as molecular characterization methods such as AFLP. The molecular program at PGRCU will continue to identify genetic markers and characterize plant genetic diversity in a number of species. Molecular methodology is an obvious approach to improve identification of valuable genetic resources and ultimately improve the value of germplasm accessions to users. Research by curators and cooperators involved in the PGRCU molecular program will expand further as more funding becomes available.
Regeneration of accessions will continue at an advanced rate. Accessions of numerous species will be regenerated during the next year including cowpeas (200 accessions), cultivated peanuts (680), watermelon (150), peppers (50), squash (20), cucurbits (10), okra (50), grasses (106), misc. crops (32), misc. legumes (184), and annual clovers (96). A screenhouse has been completely refurbished and will be used for regeneration of 25-30 accessions of wild peanuts.
SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL ACTIONS
Dr. Gary Pederson was hired as the Research Leader (RL) of the Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit starting January 16, 2001. He was hired as a Supervisory Geneticist, Category IV (service) scientist. Previously, Dr. Pederson was a Research Geneticist with ARS at Mississippi State for the past 18 years concentrating on clover breeding and genetics. Besides serving as RL and Location Coordinator at Griffin, he will also curate the annual clover collection (previously handled by Brad Morris) and coordinate the sorghum germplasm collection (previously handled by Gil Lovell). Gil Lovell, curator of warm-season grasses, millet, new crops, bamboo, and other crops, retired in January 2001. A final decision on the specific duties of his successor has not yet been reached, though the position will definitely be filled. Tentatively, the new curator will concentrate solely on warm-season grasses, millet, and bamboo. Brad Morris will take over as the new crop curator and is currently the acting curator for the warm season grasses.
USDA/ARS PGRCU BUDGET SITUATION AND OUTLOOK
The increase in base funding of $349,370 provided by ARS in FY01 came at a very critical moment. Lack of additional funds for the PGRCU in FY01 would have definitely reduced the number of regenerations that could be conducted as well as impacting the continued maintenance of the collection. The increase in funding along with the hiring of a new Research Leader has brought a renewed vitality to the program. The momentum obtained through these actions must be maintained. Recent reviews of the S-9 budget and PGRCU program prior to this increase consistently recommended a minimum $500,000 increase in base funding to support operations. Therefore, at a minimum, an additional $150,000 is needed in base funding. Also, a molecular geneticist is sorely needed to lead the PGRCU molecular program forward. The salary and support for this position would be $250,000 annually. Excellent support personnel are already at work in the PGRCU molecular program and, with some updating of equipment, the laboratories and facilities would be ready to be utilized more extensively. The molecular geneticist would also serve as a lead scientist in grant proposals providing a much better opportunity to significantly increase extramural funding for the PGRCU.
Action Requested: Increase the S-9 FY02 personal services budget in the amount of $14,594, for a total S-9 FY02 budget of $384,832. The requested increase reflects a 4.5% increase in salaries based on The University of Georgia salary projections.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Arkin and Huettel, the FY02 budget request was approved (14-0) subject to the following caveat: “Using FY 2001 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2002 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”

FUNDING REQUEST FOR FY2002
A. S-9:	Authorized FY2000	Authorized FY2001	Requested FY2002
Personnel	$277,865	$324,316	$338,910^a
Travel	1,500	1,500	1,500
Operations	61,992	41,422	41,422
Equipment	3,000	3,000	3,000
TOTAL	$344,357	$370,238	$384,832
^a Reflects a 4 1/2% increase in salaries based on projections established by The University of Georgia.

B. USDA/ARS:	Authorized FY2000	Authorized FY2001	Requested FY2002
Personnel	$1,061,343	$1,157,601	$1,239,113^c
Travel	15,000	89,406^b	25,000
Indirect Research Cost/ Other Services	166,620	253,016	263,137
RSA support	79,543^a	37,137	40,000
Operation	90,012	264,471	231,381
Equipment	3,000	17,000	20,000
Construction	0	0	0
Building and Field Maintenance/Support	50,000	50,000	50,000
TOTAL	$1,465,518	$1,868,631	$1,868,631
^a Three full-time RSA employees were moved from RSA to S-9 account in FY00. ^b Travel for FY01 includes estimated relocation expense for new Research Leader. ^c Includes an average 4% projected increase in salaries and two new technical positions.

Table 1. Status of germplasm back up for the Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit as of March 7, 2001.
Crop	Total Accessions	Backed Up at NSSL	Percent Backed Up
Bamboo	97	50	51.5
Castor	372	356	95.7
Clover	2,088	1,491	71.4
Cucurbits	1,381	863	62.5
Eggplant	962	922	95.8
Gourds	472	306	64.8
Grasses	6,803	5,917	87.0
Guar	412	406	98.5
Hibiscus	345	311	90.1
Ipomoea batatas (sweetpotato) Ipomoea spp.	715422	83140	11.633.2
Legumes	2,924	2,306	78.9
Luffa	164	132	80.5
Miscellaneous	274	234	85.4
Okra	3,003	1,913	63.7
Pepper	3,896	3,795	97.4
Pearl millet	1,081	1,064	98.4
Peanut	9,707	8,308	85.6
Sesame	1,204	1,204	100.0
Sorghum	30,500	24,530	80.4
Vigna	12,821	10,273	80.1
Watermelon	1,631	1,602	98.2
Wingbean	164	20	12.2
Totals	81,438	66,226	81.3

Agenda Item 28.
Multistate Research Committee

Presenter: Nancy Cox
Background: Since May, 2000, the Multistate Research Committee (MRC) has been involved in review and/or approval of the following activities:
New projects approved by MRC and CSREES:

S-295: “Enhancing Food Safety Through Control of Food-Borne Disease Agents” (S-263)- Janet Johnson, AA
S-296: “Rural Labor Markets: Workers, Firms and Communities in Transition” (S-259)- Tom Klindt, AA
S-297: “Soil Microbial Taxonomic and Functional Diversity as Affected by Land Use and Management” (S-262)- Kriton Hatzios, AA
S-298: “Assessing Impacts of Welfare Reform on Individual, Family and Community Well-Being in the Rural South” (DC98-04)- William H. Brown, AA
S-299: “Enhancing Production and Reproductive Performance of Heat-stressed Dairy Cattle” (DC98-06)- David Morrison, AA
S-300: “Mosquito and Agricultural Pest Management in Riceland Ecosystems” (S-260)- Fred Knapp, AA
S-301: “Development, Evaluation and Safety of Entomopathogens for Control of Arthropod Pests” (S-265)- David Boethel, AA
S-302: “Biological Control of Soilborne Plant Pathogens for Sustainable Agriculture” (S-269)- Greg Weidemann, AA
S-303: “Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds” (S-267)- Frank Gilstrap, AA
S-304: “Development of Genetic Resources for Cotton” (S-258)- Johnny Wynne, AA
Note: S-304 is the last Multistate Research Project issued in the 300 series. Subsequently approved projects will follow the new Guidelines approved in October, 2000 and will be identified with four-digit numbers beginning with 1000.

Extension requests reviewed and approved by MRC:

S-276: Rural Restructuring: Causes and Consequences of Globaoized Agricultural and Natural Resource Systems – approved to 9/02
S-280: Mineralogical Controls on Colloid Dispersion and Solid-Phase Speciation of Soil Contaminants – approved to 9/03

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 29.
Review Requests for New or Modified Activities

Presenter: William H. Brown
Background: The following activity was submitted for consideration:

Requested Action	Prev. Activity/ Term. Date/ Advisor/Sponsor	Title	General Comments
Establish new IEG	S-183 9/01 C. Scifres	Current Issues in Weed Biology, Weed/Crop Interactions, and Weed Management in the Southern Region (See proposal below.)	S-183 elected to not revise the multistate research project, and in its place to establish an IEG. Review of the proposal by AC-1 indicates unanimous approval.
Terminate	IEG-61 9/01 V. Watson	Cotton Germplasm…	Scientists will join new multistate project S-304.
Terminate	IEG-71 9/01 C. Scifres	Good Laboratory Practices	Activity has run its course and does not need to be renewed.

Proposal to Establish IEG from S-183:

Title: Current Issues in Weed Biology, Weed/Crop Interactions, and Weed Management in the Southern Region
Accomplishments: n/a
Statement of Issue(s) and Justification: It is estimated that in the United States crop losses associated with weed competition exceed $6 billion annually. Weeds continue to cause substantial losses in crop production even with the extensive use of herbicides. While some information describing the biology of weeds has been generated over the past 50 years, the mechanisms of weed/crop interactions are not fully understood. Basic biological information for many weeds is not available. In order to develop weed management strategies that will enhance sustainability of U.S. agriculture, a better understanding of weed biology/ecology and weed/crop interactions is required. This Information Exchange Group will provide a forum to report and share research information on weed science and weed management issues relevant to the southern region. It is anticipated that this information exchange group will stimulate collaborative research efforts among the participants that will contribute to the development of cost effective and environmentally friendly weed management systems for the southern U.S. (agInnovation South Priority Area: 1A)
Objectives:
1. Develop basic information about the biology/ecology of weeds that can be used to improve the management of weeds.
2. Document and characterize the interference associated with weed/crop interactions.
3. Utilize basic weed biology and weed/crop interaction information to develop technologies to enhance weed management.
4. Develop and manage a searchable weed database that will provide a mechanism for weed biology information transfer.
Procedural Plan:
- Objective 1. – Examples of techniques used for this objective include: a) Seed dynamics will be evaluated by burial of seed at various depths for various durations in the field followed by excavation and determination of viability; b) Weed seed will be exposed to various planting depths, osmotic potentials and temperatures to learn more about the edaphic requirements for weed seed germination; c) Weed seed will be germinated under various temperature regimes so that models relating weed seed emergence to growing degree days can be developed and d) The effect of various cultural and chemical treatments on nutsedge tuber development will be determined.
- Objective 2. – Crops will be exposed to various densities and durations of weed competition to determine critical periods for control and competition thresholds.
- Objective 3. – a) The weed management decision aid Herbicide Application Decision Support System will continue to be evaluated in several crops including cotton and peanut; b) Weed management systems utilizing transgenic crops will be compared with systems utilizing non-transgenic crops to evaluate the potential for weed species shifts occurring.
- Objective 4. – A searchable data base containing weed biology information on weeds important in the southeast U.S. will be created. The data base will be available on the world wide web.
Internal and External Linkages: Linkages include S-183 scientists from AES’ in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. USDA/ARS participants include researchers from Tifton, GA, Stuttgart, AR, and Stoneville, MS. Disciplines represented include weed science, agronomy, and botany.
Performance Goal(s):
1. Output Indicators:
  - Objective 1. – a) Weeds studies will include both indigenous, exotic-invasive, and herbicide resistant weed species; b) Quantify seed bank population dynamics; c) Herbicide tolerant/resistant crop technologies as related to seedbank dynamics, introgression into weedy relatives, herbicide resistance, trait stability, and crop genetic diversity; d) Comparative response of weed ecotypes to environmental conditions.
  - Objective 2. – While a significant amount of data has been generated to document that weeds cause yield losses, far less information is available to characterize these interactions such as yield loss, quality reduction, and harvesting efficiency. Additional information is needed so that economic decision aid models can be developed or site-specific refined for use throughout the southern region when making weed management decisions.
  - Objective 3. – With herbicide use, herbicide tolerant/resistant crops, crop rotation changes, commonly recognized weed – crop associations have shifted, sometimes to include herbicide resistant weeds. Research conducted under this objective will document the effects of the aforementioned weed control technologies and environmental factors on weed/crop interactions. Areas of interest include site specific weed management, expert systems for weed management, integrated weed management, weed resistence, and herbicide tolerant/resistant crop technologies.
  - Objective 4. – Develop and manage a searchable weed database that will provide a mechanism for weed biology information transfer.
2. Outcome Indicators:
  - Improved crop production efficiency
  - Reduced pesticide use
  - Expanded weed science knowledge among all clientele in the southern region
Educational Plan: n/a
Governance (Officers): Officers will be selected at the initial meeting.
Origin of Request: S-183.

Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken: Actions were approved as follows:

On motion/second by Drs. Scifres and Jones, the request for an information exchange group from S-183 was tentative approved as a SERA, contingent on approval by Extension Directors. If Extension Directors do not approve this activity as a SERA, then it will become an IEG. (Dr. Helms was asked to present proposal to Extension.)
IEG-71 termination approved on motion/second by Drs. Scifres/Coston.
IEG-61 termination approved on motion/second by Drs. Watson/Westerman.

Agenda Item 30.
SERA-TF-12: Southeastern Small Fruit Center

Presenter: Calvin Schoulties
Background: SERA-TF-12 will end its two years of activities in September, 2001. The participants from the three states involved in the Task Force (Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina) have decided to request formation of a SERA-IEG. In the past two years, a web iste (a virtual small fruit center) has been operational, regional in-service training has been provided on strawberries and blueberries, competitive grants have been awarded from Center funds from the three participating states, and a IFAFS proposal was submitted (not funded). The participants believe that the SERA-TF has been a success and that a SERA-IEG should be considered. A formal request for a SERA-IEG will be submitted and presented to both agInnovation South and Extension prior to the August meetings.
Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 31.
Southern Region IPM

Presenter: Fred Knapp
Background: The request for pre-proposals were announced early September with a return date of October 20, 2000
Research proposals were rated by the SRIPM committee and the Extension proposals were rated by three ad hoc Extension personnel within one week and notification of full proposals were requested by e-mail with a return date to the Grant Manager, Bobby Pass, as of January 22, 2001. Ten review committee members were selected with expertise within the disciplines of proposals received. There were equal gender mixes of research/Extension personnel from the North Central and North East Regions. The Administrator Advisor for SERA-IEG 3 , David Boethel and the chair of SRIPM committee, Fred Knapp, observed the project review process.
Sixty one pre-proposals were submitted (17 were Extension) for a request of over $2M. Forty four of these (6 were Extension) were selected for full proposals. Three joint Research/Extension proposals were submitted .
Proposals selected for funding were funded at the same budget request as was stated in the pre- proposals, except for those proposals that had budget requests lower than the request on the pre- proposals.
Five Extension and nine research projects were selected for funding on March 20, 2001. No joint Research/Extension projects were funded due to these not receiving significant scores to justify funding. It was the unanimous decision of the committee, to follow the SERA IEG 3 recommendation “that the Grants Manager, in consultation with the review panel, may recommend reallocation of funds in this category to support meritorious projects in the Research or Extension categories.” Therefore, $100K was added to each category.
The following table shows the funded projects which includes the area of work, State, PI’s and dollars funded.

Proposal No.	Title	State(s)	Investigators	Amount Funded
Southern Region Integrated Pest Management Grants Program Projects Funded 2001
2001 Extension Proposals
EX-01	Melon Pest Manager – An Internet-Based Pest Management Education and Advisory System for Watermelon World (at www.lane-ag.org)	OK	Shrefler, Edelson, Roberts, Taylor	$33,276
EX-05	Texas Corn IPM Manual: Integrated Technology for Integrated Production	TX	Porter, Schuster, Porter	$21,100
EX-03	Integrating IPM Strategies in On-Farm Stored Grain in Tennessee and Kentucky	TN, KY	Buschermohle, Johnson, Montross, Kenkel, Patrick, Pordesimo, McNeill	$29,735
EX-06	Establishing a Wireless IPM Extension Delivery System	VA	Pfeiffer, Stone, Brewster	$70,000
EX-04	Developing IPM Insurance to Promote Adoption of the MELCAST Disease Forecaster	SC	Keinath, Cubie	$10,900
	Administration and Evaluation of the Southern Region IPM Program	KY	Pass	$4,989
2001 Research Proposals
R-31	Impact Assessment of an IPM Research and Extension Program in Cotton: From Boll Weevil Eradication to Bollgard	SC	Zehnder, Hammig, Roof, Jones, Mueller	$32,636
R-24	Alternative Management of Yellow Vine Disease in Melons and Other Cucurbit Crops	TX, OK	Mitchell, Davis, Bruton, Pair, Fletcher, Taylor	$88,520
R-06	Development of a Soybean Aphid Management Strategy for the Southern Region	KY	Brown, Dillon, Ghabrial, Hershman, Johnson, Trimble, Yeargan	$134,082
R-27	Integrated Pest Management of the Varroa Mite, Varroa destructor (Anderson & Trueman), in the Southern United States	TN, GA, SC	Skinner, Parkman, Delaplane, Hood	$156,504
R-30	Development and Assessment of an Integrated Cockroach Management Program in Confined Swine Production in the Southern Region	NC	Scahl, Stringham, Waldvogel, Watson, Zurek	$105,308
R-23	Integrated Management of Pasture Flies for Beef and Dairy Cattle in North Carolina	NC	Watson, Stringham, Poore, Green, Washburn	$95,014
R-01	IPM of Weeds, Clover, and Endophyte in Tall Fescue Grassland	KY	Dougherty, Anderson, Baskin, Bush, Collins,Cornelius, Ditsch, Hennig, Phillips, Schardl, Witt	$54,828
MTD-8	Integrated Management of Phytophthora Diseases in Container Nurseries Impacted by Horticultural and Weed Control Practices	VA-SC	Hong, Banko, Derr, Jeffers	$50,000
MTD-5	Improved Decision Making Tools for Management of Barley Yellow Dwarf Luteovirus by Aphid Vector Control in Wheat	GA-SC-AL	Buntin, Chapin, Bowen, Flanders	$50,000
Total Funds Committed:Extension – $170,000 Research – $766,892TOTAL – $936,892

Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information/discussion:

Dr. Knapp noted the need to identify a process for selecting a new grants manager when the time comes that Dr. Pass no longer fills that role. The regional IPM committee was asked to consider this situation and provide a report at the August meeting.
agInnovation South agreed that a special resolution be prepared acknowledging Dr. Pass’ contributions to this program. (Dr. Boethel, Resolutions Committee, will prepare a resolution with Dr. Knapp’s assistance.)
Dr. Knapp volunteered to help manage the program if needed.
Dr. Boethel, administrative advisor for SERA-IEG-3, announced that they will be sending requests to each director for names of participants in SERA-IEG-3.

Agenda Item 32.
Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC) Update

Presenter: Lionel J. “Bo” Beaulieu
Background: Bo Beaulieu, SRDC Director, will offer a brief update on the activities of the Southern Rural Development Center. This will include a status report on: (1) the Center’s food assistance research initiative; (2) “The Rural South: Preparing for the Challenges of the 21^st Century” policy series; and (3) the SRDC’s base and extramural funding efforts. In addition, Bo will highlight the new SRDC plan of action and will showcase new economic and educational trends in the region that demonstrate the need for continued investments by land-grant institutions in rural development research.
Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information:Dr. Beaulieu asked the Association for their support, individually and collectively, through the appropriate channels for increased funding for the SRDC and other regional centers. It was suggested that an appropriate channel might be working through ESCOP and ECOP with encouragement focused on issues rather than simply general support for the centers.

Agenda Item 33.
Southern Region Pest Management Center

Presenter: Norm Nesheim
Background: Dr. Norm Nesheim, pesticide information coordinator with the University of Florida will provide detailed information concerning the new regional Pest Management Center at the University of Florida. This Center will strengthen connections between agricultural producers and research and education programs in 13 southern states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Other centers are/will be located at Michigan State University and the University of Illinois for the north central region; Pennsylvania State University and Cornell University for the northeast region; and the University of California, Davis for the western region.
Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information: The Southern Region Pest Management Center received funding for three years in the amount of $1.3 million. Twelve proposals were submitted (all funded) for regional information networks.

Agenda Item 34.
Association of Research Directors

Presenter: Sam Donald
Background:
Collaboration for the FY 2001 Multi/Integrated Accounts
In anticipation of requests for proposals, the 1890 Association of Research Directors (ARD) seeks collaboration both for lead and participating universities/other entities for Section 401 (Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems) and Section 406 (Integrated Activities) Accounts. Our institutions had some success with the Section 401 program (none with Section 406) but believe that with more collaborative efforts with agInnovation South member institutions, greater success will be achieved that will be of mutual benefits to both sets of institutions and ultimately to the clientele we serve.
Collaboration with Pacific Islands and 1994 Land-Grant Institutions
The ARD met with the Pacific Islands land-grant institutions to discuss potential areas of mutual interest. Some of the activities which have already begun or in initial stages of discussion are: graduate study programs (agribusiness, nutrition, and plant science); web based course development; and research and extension activities in the areas of aquaculture, root crops, and small ruminants. As a result of a visit to the South Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPA), a 1994 land-grant located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the following areas of mutual interest were identified: water quality; GIS/land use planning; development of a demonstration farm for native plants; phytoremediation studies; and cooperation on legislative issues of mutual interest. The ARD is thankful to the land-grant system for pursuing efforts to obtain “equitable” funding for the 1890s, 1994s and other minority serving land-grants; thus collaborative efforts between the institutions should help.
Human Resource Development Workshop
In concert with the 1890 Council of Presidents and Chancellors long range planning activities, an effort is being made to conduct a human resource development workshop. It is estimated that approximately 65% of the land-grant program administrators in the ARD member institutions will retire during the next 15 years. Therefore, it is essential to provide leadership training for the emerging administrators focusing on minorities and changing demographics. agInnovation South member institutions can play a major role by continuing (and expanding) opportunities for students from ARD member institutions to obtain terminal degrees in the food and agricultural sciences and other pertinent disciplines.
Officers of the Association of Research Directors
Officers for the next two years (November 2000 to November 2002) are: Chair Carolyn B. Brooks, UMES; Chair Elect Alfred L. Parks, Prairie View; Secretary P.S. Benepal, VSU; Treasurer, S. K. Pancholy, FAMU; and Member at Large Willie J. Rawls, Southern.
Spring Meeting of the Association of Research Directors
The Spring Meeting of the Association of Research Directors will be hosted by Southern University and held in New Orleans on April 4-6, 2001.
Action Requested: For information.
Action Taken: Following concern that the relationship between the ARD and agInnovation South needs to be made official, on motion/second by Drs. Jones/Weidemann, membership approved official status of Sam Donald as ARD liaison to agInnovation South and the Executive Director as official liaison to ARD.

Agenda Item 35
Plans for upcoming meetings

Presenter: William H. Brown
Background: The following meeting dates and plans are announced:

Southern Region Land Grant Conference
August 4-7, Oklahoma City, OK
Experiment Station Section Meeting, SAES/ARD Workshop
September 24-27, Couer d’Alene, ID
Spring, 2002 agInnovation South Meeting – Jerry Arkin
March 24-26, The Westin Resort, Savannah, GA

Action Requested: For information.
In-meeting information: During an earlier agenda item, Dr. Coston announced that the Southern Land-Grant meetings will begin on Saturday, August 4 with a tour for all participants. The agInnovation South will meet Sunday morning, August 5. The joint session will be noon Sunday through noon Monday. The chair of the Administrative Heads is program committee chair for the joint session, with chairs of other groups serving on that committee. Monday afternoon, August 6, Experiment Station and Extension Directors will meet together, followed by additional time for agInnovation South, if needed.
Dr. Arkin invited all Directors to come to Savannah, GA for the 2002 spring agInnovation South meeting. Literature from the Westin Hotel and from the Savannah area was distributed.

Agenda Item 36.
Nominating Committee Report

Presenter: Richard Jones
Background: The nominating committee was charged with selecting nominees for the following positions:

Chair-elect (effective immediately; will become chair in November, 2001) – to replace Scott Smith, who has resigned the position.
Chair-elect (effective November, 2001)
Executive Committee Member at Large (effective November, 2001 for 2-year term)

Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Morrison/Boethel, the following nominees were approved:

Vance Watson, Chair-elect (effective immediately)
Charles Scifres, Chair-elect
Greg Weidemann, Executive Committee Member-at-Large

Agenda Item 37.
Resolutions Committee

Presenter: David Boethel and William F. Brown
Background: Resolutions will be presented to active Association members who have retired, are retiring soon, or who have otherwise left the membership of the Association. These individuals are:

Everett Emino, FL – returned to the Horticulture department, UFL
Larry Rogers, LA – retired February, 2001
Michael Salassi, LA – returned to the Ag. Econ. department, LSU
Tom Scott, SC – returned to Animal and Veterinary Science department, Clemson
Philip Utley, GA – retiring August, 2001
John C. Lee, VA – retired February, 2001

Action Requested: Approval.
In-meeting information: Dr. William F. Brown presented a resolution of appreciation to the Louisiana hosts for arranging such an exception meeting and exciting social events.
An additional resolution related to the recent energy crisis was originated by the Virginia delegation, and reads as follows:
Resolution
Whereas the demand and cost of energy products has risen significantly this past winter, especially the cost of natural gas used to manufacture nitrogen-based fertilizers; and
Whereas the cost of N-based fertilizers has increased 50-75% as a result of this demand; and
Whereas there may be insufficient supplies of N-based fertilizers in 2001 to meet the demands of our agricultural industries;
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Southern Region experiment station directors work individually with Southern Region extension directors to assure that the latest technology on rates and timing of N applications and the use of alternative N carriers be transmitted to producers as rapidly as possible; and
Be it further resolved that the Southern Region experiment station directors work collectively with Southern Region extension directors to assure that appropriate programs are formulated to assist producers with short- and long-term strategies for dealing with this energy crisis; and
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Association of Southern Region Extension Directors.
Action Taken: The above resolutions were approved on motion/second by Drs. Boethel and Arkin.

Agenda Item 39.
New Publication from Clemson

Presenter: Calvin SchoultiesIn-meeting information: Dr. Schoulties announced publication of a new Station Bulletin #675 from Clemson University entitled “Preliminary Investigations on Cotton Seed Rot in South Carolina.” This publication will be on Clemson’s website in the near future.
Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 40.
NRSP External Reviews

Presenter: George CooperIn-meeting information: Discussion included the following:

Dr. Cooper will meet with the Executive Directors to develop a strategy.
Need to have an assessment of the entire portfolio, set priorities, and determine relevancy.
Determine how to identify issues that are truly national priorities in order to garner support.
Need discussion with the system on the importance of new NRSPs to best benefit the system.
Chairs of the regions need to give CSREES a clear charge for their expectations.

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 41.
National Peanut Board Contracts

Presenter: Richard JonesIn-meeting information: Dr. Jones called attention to an e-mail message he had sent to Southern Directors on March 22 sharing some of the problems that Florida was encountering with a proposed peanut research contract. Some of the issues identified were:

No indirect costs are paid
Expecting quarterly reports from the PI
No up-front dollars (only cost reimbursable)
Sharing royalties with granting agency

Action Requested: For information.
[Meeting adjourned 10:45am.]

	Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701
Executive Director Gary A. Thompson 479-502-9707 (office) 814-380-3295 (cell) gat009@uark.edu	Program Coordinator Cindy Morley 479-502-9545 (office) 479-422-1405 (cell) cmorley@uark.edu

Minutes agInnovation South Spring Meeting April 1-4, 2001 Radisson Hotel – Cypress 2 Room Baton Rouge, LA

General Schedule

Participants

Action Items

Assignments

Agenda Item 1. Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions

Agenda Item 2. ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee

Agenda Item 3. ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee

Agenda Item 4. ESCOP Science and Technology Committee

Agenda Item 5. ESCOP Partnerships Committee

Agenda Item 6. ESCOP Planning Committee

Agenda Item 7. Operational Guidelines

Agenda Item 8. Operational Plan

Agenda Item 9. IR-4 Update

Agenda Item 10. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Report

Agenda Item 11. CSREES Update

Agenda Item 12. ARS

Agenda Item 14. ARS

Agenda Item 15. Southern Region Data Support System

Agenda Item 16. Information Management and Support System (IMSS)

Agenda Item 17. Formosan Termite Program

Agenda Item 18. Report of Chief Operating Officers Meeting

Agenda Item 19. Executive Director’s Report

Agenda Item 20. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)

Agenda Item 21. NRSP-1: Current Research Information System FY02 Budget Request

Agenda Item 22. NRSP-3: The National Atmospheric Deposition Program FY02 Budget Request

Agenda Item 23. NRSP-4: A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses FY02 Budget Request

Agenda Item 24. NRSP-5: Develop and Distribute Deciduous Fruit Tree Clones Free of Viruses and Virus-Like Agents FY02 Budget Request

Agenda Item 25. NRSP-6: Interregional Potato Introduction Project FY02 Budget Request

Agenda Item 26. NRSP-8: National Animal Genome Research Program FY02 Budget Request

Agenda Item 27. S-009: PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION Review and FY02 Budget Request

Agenda Item 28. Multistate Research Committee

Agenda Item 29. Review Requests for New or Modified Activities

Agenda Item 30. SERA-TF-12: Southeastern Small Fruit Center

Agenda Item 31. Southern Region IPM

Agenda Item 32. Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC) Update

Agenda Item 33. Southern Region Pest Management Center

Agenda Item 34. Association of Research Directors

Agenda Item 35 Plans for upcoming meetings

Agenda Item 36. Nominating Committee Report

Agenda Item 37. Resolutions Committee

Agenda Item 39. New Publication from Clemson

Agenda Item 40. NRSP External Reviews

Agenda Item 41. National Peanut Board Contracts