February 6-7, 1996 Meeting Minutes

M I N U T E S

Southern Association of
Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

February 6-7, 1996

Holiday Inn Four Seasons HotelGreensboro, NC


LIST OF ATTENDEES

Meeting of theSouthern Association of AgriculturalExperiment Station Directors

February 6-7, 1996

Holiday Inn Four Seasons HotelGreensboro, NC

Attendees:

David Appel (TX)Gerald Arkin (GA)John Beverly (TX)Bob Blackmon (AR)Toni Bland, Staff Assistant (ED-S)James Boling (KY)Jack Britt (NC)Bill Brown (LA)Greg Brown (VA)Robert Cannell (VA)Jerry Cherry (GA)Neville Clarke (ED-S)George Cooper, CSREESD. C. Coston (SC)Larry Crowder (OK)Allen Dunn (SC)Everett Emino (FL)James Fischer (SC)Frank Gilstrap (TX)Tom Helms (MS)Richard Jones (FL)Gerald Jubb (VA)John Kelly (SC)Fred Knapp (KY)Kenneth Koonce (LA)Steve Kresovich – SpeakerGeorge Kriz (NC)Steve Lommel (NC)Gaylord Mink – SpeakerRussell Muntifering (AL)Charles Onstad – ARSGraham Purchase (MS)Charley Scifres (AR)Helen Shaw (NC)Dan Smith (SC)Greg Weidemann (AR)Johnny Wynne (NC)Eric Young (NC)


AGENDA

Meeting of The Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

Guilford CHoliday Inn Four Seasons HotelGreensboro, NC

February 6-7, 1996

February 6, 1996

7:00 Continental Breakfast

1. 8:00 Introductions Approval of Agenda, Minutes of Last Meeting and Interim Actions of the ChairDr. Tom Helms

2. 8:10 Report of The Search Committee for The Executive Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Jerry Arkin

3. 8:30 Plans for The Southern Regional Listening Conference of the Board on Agriculture Futuring Activities . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Neville Clarke

4. 9:00 Status and Plans for NRSP 5 on Development and Distribution of Deciduous Fruit Tree Clones Free of Virus and Virus Like Agents . . Drs. D. C. Coston and Gaylord Mink

5. 9:30 Status and Plans NRSP 1, Research Planning Using Current Research Information System (CRIS)Dr. Kenneth Koonce

6. 9:45 Status and Plans for Regional Project 9, Plant Genetic Resource Conservation and Utilization . .Dr. Steve Kresovich

7. 10:00 SRRC and Committee of Nine Reports . . . . . . . . . . Drs. Ike Sewell and D. C. Coston

8. 10:15 Summary of Beltwide Cotton Conference. . Dr. Ken Tipton 10:30 Coffee and Informal Discussion

11:00 Opening Session of Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists – Imperial D

12:00 Lunch (on your own)

9. 1:00 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Analysis of The SAAESD. . . . . . .All Members — Dr. Jerry Arkin Leader

10. 2:30 Plans for Update of the Southern Strategic Research Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Richard Jones

3:00 Coffee and Informal Discussion

11. 3:30 Meetings of SAAESD Planning Groups (Break-Out Sessions)

5:00 Recess

5:15 Refreshments and Informal Discussion – Imperial F (Dinner on your own)

February 7, 1996

7:00 Continental Breakfast

12. 8:00 Reports from Planning Groups. . . . . . . .Dr. Richard Jones

13. 8:45 Status Report on New and Continuing ActivitiesDr. Neville Clarke

14. 8:55 Status of SERA-TF on Industry-University Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Richard Jones

15. 9:05 Status of SERA-TF on Sustainable Agriculture and Agroecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Jim Fischer

16. 9:15 Assessment of Joint Southern Meeting (Clearwater) and Plans for Future Meetings . . . . . . . . .Dr. Tom Helms

17. 9:45 Plans for Engagement of 1890 Research DirectorsDr. Tom Helms

10:05 Refreshments and Informal Discussion

18. 10:35 SAAESD Commitment To and Use of The World Wide Web. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Tom Helms

19. 10:55 ESCOP Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Johnny Wynne

20. 11:10 CSREES Report. . . . . . . . Dr. Bob Robinson (invited)

21. 11:30 ARS Report . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Charles Onstadt

22. 11:45 Report from Southern Extension DirectorsDr. Hiram Palmertree

12:00 Lunch

23. 1:00 Government Performance and Results Act Status and Future Plans . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Tom Helms

24. 1:45 News From The Hill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Terry Nipp

25. 2:05 Streamlining Procedures of the AssociationDr. Neville Clarke

26. 2:45 SMIS: Recommendations for Future Action Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee. . . . . . . Dr. Johnny Wynne

3:30 Joint Refreshments with Chairs of Advisory Committees

4:00 Poster Session on the use of GIS methodology for planning and evaluation of research – Guilford A

5:00 Adjourn


Agenda Item 1

Introductions, Approval of Agenda, Minutes of Last Meetingand Interim Actions of the Chair

Presenter: Dr. Tom Helms

BACKGROUND

New members and guests will be introduced.

Members of the Association were invited to contribute agenda items, which have beenincluded in the final agenda which was circulated in advance of this meeting. Membersare invited to offer any further changes to the agenda. The minutes of the last meetingwere circulated following that meeting. The interim actions of the Chair are attached.

ACTION REQUESTEDModification and adoption of the agenda and approval of the minutes of the last meetingand interim actions of the Chair.

ACTION TAKEN

The agenda was modified to include an item on leadership of the organization, given theselection of the current Chair as the Executive Director Designate. Following thisaddition, the agenda was approved on the motion of Kriz, seconded by Emino. On themotion of Jones, seconded by Arkin, the minutes of the last meeting were approved. Onthe motion of Arkin, seconded by Kriz, the interim actions of the Chair were approved.

INTERIM ACTIONS AS CHAIR

1. Approved request from Dr. Johnny Wynne for IEG-31 to meet outside the Southern Region in St. Louis, Missouri, February 12-14, 1996.

2. Approved request from Dr. George Kriz for S-257 to meet outside the Southern Region in Coshocton, Ohio, April 14-17, 1996

3. Approved request from Helen Shaw for Advisory Committee on Human Nutrition to meeting outside the Southern Region in Washington, D.C., around American Institute of Nutrition meeting April 14-17, 1996.

4. Request by Dr. Tom Helms for S-220 to meet outside the Southern Region was approved. The location will be Las Cruces, NM, March 9-10, 1996.


Agenda Item 2

Report of the Search Committee for the Executive Director

Presenter: Dr. Jerry Arkin

BACKGROUND

The Search Committee met on January 29, 1996 to interview three candidates for theposition of Executive Director. This agenda item provides for an update of the actionsfollowing that meeting relative to negotiations and plans for transition.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information and action as indicated from the report.

ACTION TAKEN

Twelve candidates were considered, three were identified for interview (Helms, Laughlin,Musick) and Dr. Tom Helms was identified as the top candidate. A survey of operatingofficers is being made to determine the average salary of this group which is to be usedas a point of reference for salary negotiations. Other candidates have agreed to remainon stand-by, pending final negotiations with Dr. Helms.


Agenda Item 3

Plans for the Southern Regional Listening Conferenceof the Board on Agriculture Futuring Activities

Presenter: Dr. Neville Clarke

BACKGROUND

The Southern Regional Listening Session is scheduled for March 21, 1996 and will beheld in New Orleans. The framework for this meeting will be determined in theNational Scoping Conference held in Washington on January 26, 1996. The Chairs ofSAAESD and Southern Extension Directors, with the Executive Director, are interactingwith the national facilitators on details of the meeting. They have, with the extensivehelp of many Directors and Administrative Heads, identified and obtained commitmentsfrom an outstanding group of customers. Representatives from the Land GrantUniversity Academic Family have been invited to attend.

The Listening sessions, as the name implies, are primarily intended to receive input fromour customers. The Joint Council strategy will be used as a framework for thisdiscussion for two reasons: (a) it represents a contemporary consensus by the LGUcommunity on the agriculture and natural resources agenda and (b) it is currently beingused as a framework for the GPRA process.

Following the four regional listening sessions, there will be another national meeting toassimilate input and prepare an action plan for the LGU-ANR area. The overall processis complementary to intercurrent and related activities across the LGU system and in theUSDA. It also plays into the Congressional thinking on revision of Title XVI of theFarm Bill.

The current draft of the framework for the national scoping conference is attached forbackground information.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information and action that may result from discussion.

ACTION TAKEN

An overview was provided on the Board on Agriculture Futuring Activities with focus onthe regional listening sessions. Through assistance from Directors and Deans, anexcellent list of stakeholder participants has been confirmed. The National ScopingConference has been completed and will provide a frame of reference built around theJoint Council strategy — which is also being used for the same purpose by USDA in theGPRA process. The Southern Regional Listening session will be held in New Orleanson March 21, 1996.


D R A F TNational Scoping ConferenceJanuary 25, 1996Washington, DC

Format and Approach for Plenary and Break Out Sessions

January 8, 1996

ASSUMPTIONS (AND MATERIAL FOR INTRODUCTION):

1. Focus is to be on the future agenda, not on organization

2. Develop vision and mission statements for LGU-ANR in Synthesis Conference

3. Recognize the differences in organizational configuration between LGUs and avoid trying to produce an institutional (organizational) plan — focus on function

4. Final product is to be an action plan

a. What is to be done b. Who will do it c. How will it be done d. Relative priorities e. Responsibilities of various partners

5. Predicted/desired outcomes should be definable and measurable as goals of LGU-ANR program(s)

6. The Joint Council Strategy is the framework / point of departure for the Scoping Conference, Listening Sessions, and Synthesis Conference.

7. The product of the national scoping conference is an agenda for the regional listening sessions — definitions of problems and opportunities falling under the general framework of the Joint Council Strategy:

a. Assure that participants know (up-front) they are being asked to develop an agenda for the regional listening sessions, their product will serve as a frame of reference for more detailed debates. Their product should be problem and opportunity oriented.

b. The regional listening sessions will develop responses and begin the process of defining goals and priorities.

8. Draw on the Product from the meeting of the National Advisory Committee where relevant.

a. The programmatic inputs from the Advisory Committee are well represented in the goals and objectives from the Joint Council.

b. A set of 12 general non-programmatic findings or issue areas are drawn from the notes taken during the advisory committee meeting and are used as part of the framework for the discussion at the scoping conference.

9. Product should contribute to the definition of goals for GPRA

10. Suggest we abandon the term “project” as a descriptor of the Board on Agriculture Futuring Activities or subsets thereof. The Scoping Conference may develop a broad sense of relative priorities, but priority setting per se is to be done in the Synthesis Conference. We should avoid confusing the term priority with goal. Goals are what we set out to do, priorities imply a judgment or measure of relative merit.

GENERAL FORMAT FOR THE CONFERENCE

1. Initial, luncheon, and closing plenary sessions

a. Introduction — history, relationships to other studies, purpose and product b. Key-note speaker — setting the stage and charge to group c. Review of Joint Council Strategy and Results of Advisory Committee meeting (the context for break-out sessions) d. Procedures for break-out sessions e. Luncheon speaker (political perspective) f. Reports from Recorders in closing session g. Thanks and next steps

2. Workgroup – Structure and Composition

a. Round tables with up to 10 persons per table b. Facilitator from Implementing Committee (with training) c. Recorder from Implementing Committee d. 8 invited participants per table x 6-8 tables = 48-64 invited participants e. Decision to be made:

(1) Each break-out handles total agenda (RECOMMENDED BY NPC) vs assigned topic(s) to each break-out group.

(2) Assign participants to break-out groups to ensure balance (NPC RECOMMENDS) vs allowing participants to choose topics (if all break out groups are not the same).

3. Workgroup Time Budget

a. Select participants to ensure balance in a single discourse where all participants deal with all topics.

b. There are five Joint Council Goals and a general non-programmatic summary from the Advisory Committee meeting, making six areas to deal with.

c. Workgroups have three hours (180 minutes) to consider six general topics from the JC plan: About 30 minutes per topic.

d. 120 minutes before lunch: 120/6 = 20 minutes (ave) per topic — round one.

e. After Lunch: 50/6 = 8 minutes to revisit and revise topics or develop overarching comments.


S E C O N D D R A F TAGENDA

National Scoping ConferenceJanuary 25, 1996

January 8, 1996

8:30 Welcome, Overview of Board on Agriculture Futuring Activity, Purpose, and Product of the Scoping ConferenceCo-Chairs

8:45 The Land Grant University System in Transition: An Assessment of External and Internal Environments And Implications for Change Dr. Robert Thompson

9:15 The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences Five Year Plan (1993): A Framework for Discussion Neville Clarke

9:30 Organization and Conduct of The Scoping Conference Break-Out Sessions for Workgroups Facilitators

a. The Joint Council Framework b. Facilitators and Recorders c. Definition of Product of Workshops d. Output: Definition of Problems and Opportunities e. Mechanics and Logistics of the Workshops

9:50 Break

10:05 Workgroup Round Table Sessions Participants

12:00 Lunch and Luncheon Speaker (Political Context) Congr. Pat Roberts or Staff

1:30 Reconvene Workgroup Round Table Sessions Participants

2:20 Plenary Session: Reports from Workgroups and Discussion

3:20 Concluding Comments Co-Chairs

3:30 Adjourn


Agenda Item 4

Status and Plans for NRSP-5 on Development andDistribution of Deciduous Fruit Tree ClonesFree of Virus and Virus-like Agents

Presenters: Dr. D. C. Coston Dr. Gaylord Mink

BACKGROUND

NRSP-5 (formerly IR-2) is an ongoing interregional project with Prosser, Washington asits primary location for activities. The program has evolved over the years and is servinga large number of public breeding and genetics programs and a number of privateclients. Additionally, the program conducts research programs in conjunction withExperiment station scientists throughout the United States.

D.C. Coston serves as the Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station DirectorsAssociation Administrative Advisor for NRSP-5. Gaylord Mink is the NRSP-5 director. Dr. Mink will discuss the evolution of the program, the research conducted, the servicesoffered, and funding.

ACTION REQUESTED

This report is being presented as information.

ACTION TAKEN

This was an informational briefing. Copies of the slides used in the presentation areattached.


Agenda Item 5

Status and Plans for NRSP-1, Research PlanningUsing Current Research Information System (CRIS)

Presenter: Dr. Kenneth Koonce

BACKGROUND

The Current Research Information System (CRIS) received $218,900 in off-the-topfunding from SAES in FY 1996. This represents 21.25% of the total CRIS budget. Other agencies providing funds and their percentages are: Forest Service (11%),Economic Research Service (3%), Agricultural Research Service (36%), CSREES (25%),1890’s (4%). CSREES usually provides additional funding for equipment, maintenance,etc. on a year-to-year basis.

In past years several issues have been raised about the relevance of CRIS and whetherits classification system may be repetitious of other databases and that it may be toocumbersome to be responsive to user needs in the modern era of electronic informationretrieval and access.

Recent studies have proposed several changes in CRIS including more clearly definingthe purpose as primarily an information system about agricultural research. Morespecific, recommendations include reducing or eliminating subcategories that haveoutlived their utility and adding certain elements to the classification system. Acontinuing criticism is that CRIS has not responded in a timely manner to changingneeds.

A national task force funded by CSREES and headed by Colin Kaltenbach (AZ) is set toexamine CRIS with charges that include developing and implementing strategies forimproving CRIS in order to meet needs of government agencies, SAES and otherclientele, and developing means for CRIS to evolve to reflect new and emerging areas ofagricultural research.

When CRIS is viewed as the only consistent and complete repository of summaryinformation on publicly funded (including privately funded grants) agricultural researchits need and relevance can be justified.

ACTION REQUESTED

Affirm importance of CRIS as a repository of publicly funded agricultural researchinformation. Affirm support of SAES off-the-top funding of NRSP-1 (CRIS) of no morethan the current level of $218,900 or 21.25% of the total CRIS budget, whichever issmaller for FY 1997.

ACTION TAKEN

Action on funding will be taken at the April meeting with other related proposals fornew and continuing activities. The presenter seeks nominations from directors for theSouthern Regional technical representative to this NRSP. The previousrecommendations of the ESCOP Strategic Planning Subcommittee regarding the need fora modernized management information system were discussed. The members of theAssociation question whether CRIS can provide this or whether a stand-alone newsystem is needed in lieu of or complementary to CRIS.


Current Research Information System
FY 1994 Budget/FY 1995 Budget/FY 1996 Budget/Proposed FY 1997 Budget(Thousands of Dollars)

                                                         ProposedObject Class                    FY 1994  FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997

11 & 12 Personnel (12 Staff) $700.1 $719.0 $736.4 $754.0 (Salaries & Benefits)

21 Travel 3.2 2.0 2.0 3.0

22 Transportation 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

23 Lease (Copier) 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7

24 Printing 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

25 Other Services National Computer Center 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 (NCC-KC) DIALOG 13.0 15.0 13.2 0.0 Data Preparation 57.6 50.0 45.0 50.0 Indexing/Data Entry/Vocabulary 4.3 18.0 22.0 25.0 Training 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.5 Maintenance (LAN/PCs) 1.5 1.5 2.0 4.0 AD-419/AD-421 Notices 6.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 SURANET-CRIS ON INTERNET 12.8 13.0 13.0 0.0 NIH/HRIMS 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 CRIS Enhancement (Contractor) 66.0 72.0 28.0 0.0 NAL Reimbursement Space 21.0 21.0 21.0 22.0 Shared Printer 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 ARS Reimbursement – Shared Tape Drives 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26 Supplies 15.1 12.2 5.6 7.6

31 Equipment PC & LAN Enhancements 8.4 17.0 5.0 20.6

40 Extramural (Cooperative Agreement/ CRISFRMS-Vermont) 63.7 30.0 80.0 82.0

TOTAL $1,030.0 $1,030.0 $1,030.0 $1,030.0 1/ 2/ 3/ADJUSTED TOTAL $1,045.7 $1,155.0 $1,100.0 $1,030.0

1/ NRSP-1 approved budget was $1,030,000 – add’l $ 15,700 provided by CSREES for CRISFRMS2/ NRSP-1 approved budget was $1,030,000 – add’l $125,000 provided by CSREES (see next page)3/ NRSP-1 approved budget was $1,030,000 – add’l $ 70,000 provided by CSREES for CRISFRMS for FY 97

FY 1995 Budget Notes:

A) An additional $50,000 was provided by the CSREES Administrators Office in order to continue the Cooperative Agreement with the Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station. This Cooperative Agreement provides continuing support and enhancement of the CRISFRMS data entry and data management system utilized by most of the CRIS participating institutions.

B) $75,000 was provided at the very end of the fiscal year by CRIS – the Science and Education Resources Development Unit, and the Partnership Unit of CSREES. These funds were utilized to procure database management software (Star – by Caudra Assoc.) and a Sun Serve with 128 megs of memory and 10 gigabytes of storage. This system will be utilized to make the CRIS database accessible via the World Wide Web on the INTERNET.

CURRENT RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMBUDGET CONTRIBUTION BY AGENCYFY 1987 – FY 1997(Thousands of Dollars)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Percent                                                                         ProposedAgency  Contribution      1987  1988    1989   1990  1991    1992  1993    1994  1995   1996      1997

FS 10.9 $100.3 $104.9 $104.9 $104.9 $106.9 $110.6 $110.6 $112.3 $112.3 $112.3 $112.3

ERS 2.9 26.7 27.9 27.9 27.9 28.4 28.4 29.4 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9

RSCDS 0.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

ARS 35.9 330.2 345.4 345.4 345.4 352.2 364.4 364.4 369.8 369.8 369.8 369.8

CSREES 25.0 230.0 240.5 240.5 240.5 246.3 253.8 253.8 257.5 257.5 257.5 257.5

SAES 21.3 195.5 204.4 204.4 204.4 208.5 215.7 215.7 218.9 218.9 218.9 218.9

1890 3.8 34.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 38.1 38.1 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6


TOTAL 100.0 $920 $962 $962 $962 $981 $1,015 $1,015 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030


CSREES Additional                       1/   2,3/     3/   1,4/     3/     3/     3/              Contribution                     50.0  125.0   43.0  117.0   15.7  125.0   70.0    0.0

AdjustedTotal                               $1,012 $1,106 $1,058 $1,132 $1,045.7      $1,155 $1,100 $1,030

1/ CRIS Technology enhancement2/ LAN Design, Procurement & Installation3/ Cooperative Agreement for development, maintenance, and continuing enhancement of AD-416/417/421 PC Program (CRISFRMS)4/ Funds were carried over from unobligated FY 1992 funds


CRIS FY 1996 Activities and 1997Plans
1. System Enhancements

(1) Continue development of the UNIX/Star system. the primary goal of this effort is to place the CRIS file and subject matter subfiles on-line, in a user friendly mode, via INTERNET and the World Wide Web. the secondary goal is to eventually replace most of the existing COBOL programs utilized in the update sub-system.

(2) Assist the new national task force, to be funded by CSREES, and headed by Dr. Colin Kaltenbach (AZ). The task force is charged with:

a) Developing and implementing strategies and mechanisms for improving CRIS in order to meet the needs of USDA Agencies, OMB, Congress, participating institutions, and other clientele for up- to-date, relevant, and useful information on the research programs of the USDA and the State Agricultural Experiment Station research system.

b) Developing a means for CRIS to evolve in order to reflect new and emerging areas of agricultural research.

c) Improving the system’s responsiveness and accessibility to research managers, research participants, clientele, Administration and Congress.

d) Developing an accountability and accomplishments reporting process to comply with the new Government and Performance Results Act.

e) Developing a bridging concept that will enhance CRIS’s ability to become an integral component of the future, more comprehensive Research, Education, and Economics Information System.

(3) Begin to research ways in which the financial information, within CRIS, can be made accessible to the user base, utilizing the UNIX/Star System. Previously this effort was being carried out by a contractor using a Windows NT Server. the Star/UNIX solution presents a more “user friendly” interface and incorporating the financial data onto the same UNIX/Star server presents several new options for exploration.

(4) Upgrade CRIS LAN capabilities. Additional printing capabilities and faster modems are required.

(5) Upgrade staff Personal Computers.

2. CRISFRMS

(1) Develop a new Windows Client/server version of CRISFRMS – WINCRIS. More sophisticated capabilities will be added, for example, built-in connectivity for data exchange.

(2) Develop data entry and processing capabilities directly on the World Wide Web server that can handle data entry from remote sites.

(3) Provide continuing CRISFRMS program update and maintenance, distribution, documentation and support.

(4) Incorporate the “Role Based Aid to Classification” module, created by the Cooperative Agreement with MT, into CRISFRMS.

3. Instruction Manuals

(1) Update the “Manual for Preparing CRIS Forms for State and Non-Federal Institutions”. Incorporate all CRIS Forms Instructions into one Manual.

(2) Develop user guides for searching the CRIS files and subfiles on the UNIX/Star system.

4. CD-ROM Applications

Evaluate CD-ROM Technology for utilization in various aspects of CRIS.

(1) Publishing and distributing current and history issues of the Inventory of Agricultural Research.

(2) Self-contained retrieval and report writer for current and history financial file.

(3) Self-contained retrieval package for searching CRIS technical data.

(4) Test and finalize the CRIS AGRISEARCH CD-ROM Reference Guide.

5. Expand Scope of the CRIS Technical Data

Continue to explore ways to expand the technical data in CRIS by adding non- land grant and foreign agricultural research databases as subfiles. Texas Tech has confirmed their desire to participate. Further interaction is necessary in regard to the PAO CARIS database, the European Union’s Permanent Inventory of Agricultural Research, the World Bank SPAAR database and the International Agricultural Research Centers databases.

6. Ongoing Program Support

Six Online and CD-ROM Retrieval Workshops Briefings and Presentations On-Demand Technical Retrievals Post Search Interviews Update and Maintain Specialized Databases and Subfiles Publish the 1995 Inventory of Agricultural Research Annual SAES Station Director’s Reports Annual Salary Survey Publication Annual Programs of Research – Formula Funds Update and maintain CRIS technical files for NTIS, HINRIMS, SilverPlatter, etc. Human Nutrition Coding for HINRIMS File CSREES Research Program Certification Animal Health and Disease Research Program McIntire-Stennis Forestry Research Program Technical Report Preparation (CRIS Research Highlights) CSREES Budget Report Generation


Agenda Item 6

Status and Plans for Southern Regional Project S-9, PlantGenetic Resource Conservation and Utilization

Presenter: Dr. Steve Kresovich

BACKGROUND

There has been exciting progress on the joint Southern Experiment Stations and ARSwork on genetic resource conservation and utilization. Collections have been updatedand streamlined and the use of modern molecular methodologies is providing a greatlyenhanced ability to use the available materials.

In light of the review of this and other related projects at the Spring meeting, it wasdeemed appropriate for members to have a thorough update on the status of this effort.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information.

ACTION TAKEN

Copies of the slides used by Dr. Kresovich are attached. On the Motion of Arkin,seconded by Brown, a motion was passed asking the Chair to appoint a committee toreview the regional project on Plant Genetic Resource Conservation and Utilization,with a report on approximately 12 months. Dr. Arkin is to assist the Chair in crafting acharge to the committee. ARS is to be invited to participate as they did during the lastreview two years ago. The Chair was asked to explore the utility of continuity inappointments between the last review and this one.


Agenda Item 7

SRRC and Committee of Nine Reports

Presenters: Dr. Ike Sewell Dr. D. C. Coston

BACKGROUND

The Committee of Nine met via teleconference to act on proposals andpolicy/procedures. This agenda item provides an opportunity for our representatives toreview the outcomes of this meeting and offer advice to administrative advisors andothers. SRRC will report on its activities. The CSREES representative may wish toprovide perspective on these matters.

The usual summary of current status of regional activities is attached for information.

ACTION REQUESTED

General discussion is solicited. No action other than that which might arise from thefloor is anticipated.

ACTION TAKEN

USDA has asked that each region document the processes used in review of RRFproposals. The draft prepared by Dr. Sewell was reviewed by SRRC at its separatemeeting. The revisions of process for preparation and submission have been completedand assistance of Directors is sought in assuring wide distribution of these procedures tothose who may prepare or oversee preparation of proposals for regional research. Thenew procedures will be incorporated in the revised Guidelines for Southern Directors.The Committee of Nine will review all NRSPs in their third year, NRSPs 3,5, and 6 willlikely be reviewed this year. It was noted that USDA has not sent out its annualreminder to submit annual and final reports from regional projects.


C/9 AND SRRC REPORTAssociation of Southern Agricultural Experiment Station DirectorsFebruary 6-7, 1996Greensboro, NC

REPORT

  1. Southern Regional Projects Approved in 1995: 9 Southern Regional Projects Carried Over from 1995: 2
    • Pesticides in Water and Air Samples: Validation of Disk and Fiber Phase Extraction Techniques (N. P. Thompson, FL) — Reviewed by SRRC and Returned to Administrative Advisor (New Project)
    • Utilizing Potassium Buffering Capacity to Predict Cotton Yield Response to Potassium Fertilizer (Ken Tipton, LA) — Pending Approval (New Project)
  2. New/Revised Project Development: Approval Steps and Timetable
    • To begin, six copies of completed projects (along with SY, PY, TY commitments) should be submitted by administrative advisor to SRRC chairman for SRRC review.
    • SRRC review — 3 weeks
    • SRRC chairman collates SRRC review comments and responds to administrative advisor — 1 week
    • Administrative advisor and writing committee make improvements and resubmit four copies of revised project to SRRC chairman — 4 weeks maximum
    • SRRC chairman submits final project to chairman of Southern Directors for endorsement and transmittal to CSREES — 1 week
    • Project must arrive at CSREES 4 weeks before C/9 meeting (to be considered at that meeting)The total time required for this process is about 13 weeks (assuming all goes well) before the next C/9 meeting.

      1996 C/9 meetings are scheduled for May 15 and September 11.

    • Projects to be considered at the May 15 meeting should be submitted to SRRC chairman by February 15.
    • Projects to be considered at September 11 meeting for October 1 funding must be received by SRRC chairman by not later than June 7; early in May is highly preferable in that the writing committee will have more time.
    • Projects will always be considered by mail at any time; however, the above deadlines must be met for October 1 funding of a new/revised project.

    SRRC appreciates the cooperation and understanding of all administrative advisors who submitted projects in 1995. The SRRC chairman feels that the project approval process is working well.

  3. C/9 representatives are D. C. Coston and J. I. Sewell. D. C. Coston is secretary and J. I. Sewell is chairman of C/9 for 1996.
  4. C/9 met by conference call on December 5, 1995.
    • A draft proposal for CSREES World-Wide Web (WWW) input will be presented to C/9 for consideration during the May meeting.
    • Resulting from reactions to the proposed Regional Workshop II discussed at the last Southern Directors meeting, the four regional associations and their executive directors are asked to consider at their spring meetings those changes and improvements in the original proposal which should be made. Which themes should the workshop cover? What should be done at the workshop? If it is to be conducted, when should it be scheduled? D. C. Coston represents the Southern Region on the Regional Workshop Committee which will work with George Cooper of CSREES. Input from the Southern Region should be submitted to D. C. Coston who will work the Committee in preparing a report to C/9 to be given at the May meeting.
  5. C/9 met by conference call on January 25* to consider National and Regional Trust Fund Projects.

FY 96 National Trusts (6) total $1,568,444 FY 96 NC Trusts (2) total 502,051 FY 96 NE Trusts (2) total 180,146 FY 96 SR Trust (S-009, GA) totals 234,810 FY 96 WR Trusts (3) total 419,460

Grand Total Regional Trusts $2,904,911

C/9 has organized three committees to conduct third-year reviews of NRSP’s — NRSP3 (National Atmospheric Deposition , CO); NRSP5 (Virus-Free Fruit Tree Clones, WA); NRSP6 (Solanium Potato Project, WI) — and prepare reports for presentation to C/9 in May.

*D. C. Coston will give details of meeting.

ACTION

General discussion is solicited. No action other than that which might arise from the floor isanticipated.


PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING NEW RRF PROJECTS

Southern Region

1. After a Development Committee has been approved by the Assocciation of Southern Directors, the Administrative Advisor organizes a new project writing committee.

2. The writing committee solicits participation from all experiment stations within the Southern Region and from participants from all other regions who may have an interest in the project.

3. The writing committee meets to organize themselves to write a new project. Normally an overall project editor is appointed and several objective editors are assigned tasks leading toward the development of the draft project. This meeting is often held in conjunction with a RRF project technical committee meeting or some professional meeting.

4. The writing committee distributes a copy of the draft to all persons who have expressed interest in participation.

5. The Chairman of the writing committee submits the completed draft to the Administrative Advisor who then solicits written peer reviews of the project from at least three outside reviewers. The writing committee chair may be assigned the responsibility for obtaining the peer reviews before the final draft is submitted to the Administrative Advisor.

6. The Administrative advisor submits the project to the Chairman of the Southern Regional Research committee (SRRC) who distributes copies of this project to SRRC members for review according to rather detailed and specific guidelines.

7. The SRRC completes their review in not more than four weeks and returns their completed reviews and recommendations to the SRRC Chairman.

8. The SRRC Chairman consolidates the reviewer comments and informs the Administrative Advisor concerning required improvements, additions, changes, etc.

9. The Administrative Advisor then goes back to the writing committee which makes the necessary improvements and changes.

10. The Administrative Advisor submits final signed copies of the project to the SRRC Chairman who then prepares a Form 89.

11. The final project and the Form 89 are submitted to the Chairman of the Assocciation of Southern Directors for endorsement and submittal to the Committee of Nine and CSREES.

12. The project is then considered for appoval by the Committee of Nine.

J.I.S. January, 1996


Agenda Item 8

Summary of Beltwide Cotton Conference

Presenter: Dr. Ken Tipton

BACKGROUND

The Conference was held in Nashville during the week of January 8, 1996. Attendanceexceeded 5,400 and an active and useful engagement occurred.

The Tecoman Winter Cotton Nursery, now in it’s fifteenth year at this location, hasfunctioned well in the last growing season and the crop for this year is also doing well. There are 27 cooperators. ARS has six entries, SAESs have 8 and industry 13. Thenursery planted 2.4 acres this year. The annual budget for 1994-5 is projected at$242,384. The trend is to submit a smaller volume of seed per cooperator, withconfidence of good quality and yield. For several years, the nursery has failed togenerate fees to cover full operating expenses; the shortfall is underwritten by USDA(ARS-College Station) and Cotton Incorporated. Efforts to evaluate other possible siteshave not yet produced any competitive alternatives. A disgruntled laborer damagedseveral rows of nursery material but reserve seeds and the fact that this occurred early inthe season allowed for nearly full recovery of the loss by replanting. Full time guards onthe station are now provided. Fees are not expected to increase in the next growingseason.

The National Cotton Variety Testing Program continues to provide a mechanism forstandardizing the framework for trials with reference varieties from across the beltredefined. Transgenics may now be included in regional trials, if they are labeled assuch. New methods of cotton fiber quality measurement are being considered. ARSprovides leadership and some funding for these trials, which now number about 50 acrossthe belt.

The Cotton Germplasm Advisory Committee reported that material from the formerSoviet Union states has been acquired and that we are in the process of gaining newmaterials from India in an exchange program. Information and results of cotton testingare now available on the internet (WWW and Gopher).

Regional research projects and Information Exchange Groups are functioning well. ARS continues it’s commitment to cotton research. Relationships between industry andpublic institutions conducting research remain close. Cooperation between industry andpublic researchers is good.

There will be a major turn-over of SAAESD representatives to various relatedcommittees resulting from retirements and reassignments.

SAESs are encouraged to consider using the Tecoman nursery. Further usage would putthe facility on a break even basis and ensure its future viability.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information and action as needed.

ACTION TAKEN

This was an informational briefing.


Agenda Item 9

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT)Analysis of the SAAESD

All Members–Dr. Jerry Arkin Leader

BACKGROUND

At the April, 1995 meeting, the Executive Director introduced the idea of having ageneral discussion of the status of the Association in the form of the development of aSWOT analysis. A preliminary summary of how such an analysis might look wasprovided as an example. At that point, the Association agreed that it would beappropriate to undertake such a discussion at this meeting. This would be useful in thecontext of the upcoming revision of our strategic plan, which will be done in April.

The summary from the presentation last year is attached for information.

ACTION REQUESTED

Members are asked to give some advanced thought to the exercise and be prepared foractive participation in a discussion of the several components of SWOT. The results willbe compiled and made available to members before the April meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

The results of the SWOT analysis in raw form are attached. This will be used as a basisfor discussion of the institutional component of the revision of the Southern StrategicPlan. It will be summarized and made available for further discussion and finalization atthe April meeting.


Conclusions(Excerpt of ED report to the Associationat the April 1995 meeting)

As indicated in the introduction, a fairly commonly used method by those who wish tore-examine the overall strategy for institutions of various kinds is the so called “SWOT”analysis. I have chosen this approach to form a summary for my assessment of the Association in April of 1995. The SWOT analysis, done properly, involves an interactiveprocess among stake holders with debate which would be far in excess to the thoughtgiven to this summary. The very abbreviated listing given below conveys some thoughtsrelative to our good points and our not-so-good points — from the perspective of a staffperson without individual state portfolio, but with a broad interest and commitment tothe Association. It might serve to stimulate discussion in a future meeting of theAssociation.

Strengths

  • Early commitment to regional strategic planning with application to resource decisions on cooperative research
  • Linkages with Southern Extension Directors in joint activities (SERAs)
  • Mutual commitment for enhancing quality and quantity of cooperative efforts between and among states
  • Enhanced involvement of Department Heads/Chairs in the affairs of the Association
  • Moving past USDA cooperative regional research to a broader cooperation among states
  • Ability to influence the national agenda through aggressive regional planning inputs and on-going leadership activities
  • Goals of having more effective and efficient meetings which generate quality time for discussion of key issues and opportunitiesWeaknesses
  • Non-uniform perceptions of need for and commitment to the Association’s agenda among members of the Association
  • Complexity of process and procedures to conduct the business of the Association
  • Geographic diversity within the region limits broad cooperation
  • Percentage of time busy administrators can profitably spend on regional activities
  • Variations in organizational configurations between institutions
  • Variations in management methods and style for regional research and other regional activities
  • Limited regional resources embedded in ongoing programs within individual SAESs with resulting limitations in financially supporting new regional cooperative effortsOpportunities
  • Consolidation of research serving multiple states at single locations
  • Reduced number of regional research projects with greater focus on regional priorities
  • Increased focus on truly interactive and interdisciplinary regional research
  • Use of SMIS and CRIS for more effective regional and sub-regional planning
  • Organization of regional stake-holders for more effective Congressional liaison
  • Use of regional engagement to facilitate intra-state communication between universities and state decision makers
  • More effective sharing of experiences and problems between SAES directors through enhancement of quality time at meetings
  • More effective linkages and commitment to joint activities other than information exchange with Southern Extension Directors
  • Better use of Information Exchange Groups to identify and plan regional researchThreats
  • Continued erosion of state and federal funding for research
  • Eroding stake holder support
  • Degraded communication with policy and decision makers from non-rural backgrounds
  • Failure to respond to changing perceptions of the social contract between the public and land grant universities
  • Neglecting to develop new paradigms which anticipate changing external and internal environments
  • Difficulty in maintaining mission focus and direction of programs involving multiple sources of (soft) funding
  • Failure to assure adoption of modern scientific methods and to reach outside colleges of agriculture to find the needed expertise for mission research
  • Loss of effective communication with and commitment from disciplinary leaders and scientists
  • Failure to take a proactive position with respect to integration of traditional functions in the agriculture programs of land grant universities

Agenda Item 10

Plans for Update of the Southern Strategic Research Plan

Dr. Richard Jones

BACKGROUND

The Southern Strategic Research Plan is a derivative of the ESCOP plan which is revisedon a four year cycle. A mid-term update is done at the second year. The Associationhas initiated an update of the Southern plan following the ESCOP update which wasdone in August, 1995 and published in January, 1996. Advisory Committees of theAssociation have been asked to review and recommend changes on the Southern specificparts of the current plan, using the revised update from ESCOP as a point of departure. Their inputs are being received and will be organized as inputs to the deliberations ofthe six SAAESD Planning Groups at the April, 1996 meeting. Representatives of theseAdvisory Committees will be invited to the April meeting to participate in thedeliberations of the Planning Groups.

At this meeting, preliminary plans for the update of the Southern plan will be discussedin our plenary session as well as in break-out sessions of the Planning Groups. Theobjective will be to review the process and to make arrangements for interim actions bythe Planning Groups in preparation for the April meeting.

The next revision of the Southern Strategic Research Plan will be published on theWorld Wide Web, with a printed summary for use by advocates.

ACTION REQUESTED

Review of plans for the revision of the Southern plan and definition of interim actionsneeded in advance of the April meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

Three interrelated activities are involved in the update of the Southern Strategic Plan: (1) identify any SMIS based data needed for planning groups, (2) identify specificrequests for summary data on the total regional research portfolio that can be used atthe April meeting, and (3) develop further thinking on the SWOT analysis and theinstitutional plan for the Association in the update of the strategy. Interim assignmentsto members of the planning groups could be made, if the group wishes to do so. Updateof the opportunities section and the Southern specific inputs to the national plan will beaccomplished at the April meeting. It was noted that the Chairs of Advisory Committeesor their representatives will be invited to the April meeting to interact with planninggroups.


Agenda Item 11

Meetings of SAAESD Planning Groups(Break-out Sessions)

BACKGROUND

In the previous agenda item, a description of procedures for the revision of the SouthernStrategic Research Plan was presented and the actions to be taken in break-out sessionsof the Planning Groups was defined.

In addition, this agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Planning Groups todiscuss their approaches for the April meeting and to define any interim actions neededto prepare for this session.

This will include definition of any data or other information desired by Planning Groups,including analysis of the regional portfolio, the overall research portfolio, and anyanalyses needed requiring use of the Southern Management Information System.

ACTION REQUESTED

Plans for the Planning Group meeting in April and identification of interim actions toprepare for this session.

ACTION TAKEN

Reports from break-out sessions are reported under agenda item 12. the Environmentaland Natural Resources and Economics and Social Issues groups met together as did theNutrition, Food Safety and Health and the Processes and Products groups. This wasdone to gain critical mass for these groups.


Agenda Item 12

Reports from Planning Groups

Presenter: Dr. Richard Jones

BACKGROUND

Brief reports from each Planning Group will be provided to the plenary session of theAssociation meeting.

ACTION REQUESTED

Chairs of Planning Groups are asked to make these presentations. There may be furtherdefinition of actions to be taken following the discussion of these reports.

ACTION TAKEN

Attached are the reports of the consolidated Planning Groups. These are to be reviewedand interim actions undertaken, where feasible, to provide additional information for theApril meeting. Plans were made for groups to review the southern specific language inthe existing strategy, review and revise the southern opportunities, evaluate the existingregional and total portfolios of research activities, and further consideration in thesmaller groups of the preliminary results of the SWOT analysis done under agenda item9. It was recommended that a method be devised to create interregional awareness ofplans for regional projects so that scientists wishing to cooperate could be involved at theplanning stage.


Agenda Item 13

Status Report on New and Continuing Activities

Presenter: Dr. Neville Clarke

BACKGROUND

Requests for completion or continuation of existing activities or initiation of newactivities are provided by members of the Association in early January. These arereferred to appropriate Advisory Committees for recommendation and results areorganized for Planning Groups use at the April meeting. This agenda item will providea preview of the requests for action in April. In accordance with our new procedures,details of these requests will not be sent individually to members but will be organizedand sent as a total package shortly before the April meeting.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information and any action resulting from discussion or break-out sessions.

ACTION TAKEN

The list of requests to consider new or continuing activities at the April meeting, aspresently configured, was presented to the Association for information. The number ofnew starts is smaller this year than before. It is expected that there may be furthersubmissions arising from the meetings of Advisory Committees which have not yet beencompleted.


Agenda Item 14

Status of SERA-TF on Industry-University Relationships

Presenter: Dr. Richard Jones

BACKGROUND

At the Joint Meeting of Southern Experiment Station and Extension Directors in July,1995, a new SERA Task Force was established on Industry University Relationships. Itfollowed review of current methods for management of intellectual property and apresentation made by representatives of Monsanto.

The charge to this task force is attached for reference.

The Co-Chair of the Task Force will provide a status report and plans for action of thisgroup.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information.

ACTION TAKEN

The Task Force has not yet been active, but plans to get underway in the immediatefuture. First priority is to be placed on organizing the workshop called for in therecommended actions from the July, 1995 meeting. The industry co-chair is to beinvolved at the outset. The workshop might include representatives from other regionssince the results of the effort may have national implications.


Agenda Item 15

Status of SERA-TF on Agroecosystems and SustainableAgriculture

Presenter: Dr. Jim Fischer

BACKGROUND

This Task Force was established at the Joint Meeting of Southern Experiment Stationand Extension Directors in July, 1995. It continues a discussion of the possible need forregional activities to address the new agenda for defining the intersection of agricultureand the environment at a broader level. At this joint meeting, the preliminary results ofan assessment of the current investment in research supporting sustainable agriculture inthe Southern region was also presented. It was the conclusion of the group that, whilethe general area seems appropriate for some kind of joint regional activity, it was notclear just what this should be. The purpose of this task force is to further explore thisneed and develop recommendations for joint activity.

The Task Force met via teleconference and prepared a report which was summarized atthe November, 1995 meeting of the Association. In this report, it was recommended thata group of projects be identified that represent current research dealing withagroecosystems and that related scientists be asked to discuss the development oforganizing principles for describing current and future efforts. This engagement is to beundertaken by the existing Task Force with the goal of providing a firm recommendationfor action on joint regional activities at the next joint meeting.

The charge to the task force is attached for information.

This agenda item is for the purpose of providing an update and status report on theactivities of the Task Force.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information.

ACTION TAKEN

The Task Force has identified an ad-hoc committee comprised of key participants in therecent conference on Agroecosystems and asked them to provide a definition and frameof reference for the term agroecosystem and to provide their advice on whether or notthere are potential agendas for cooperation at the regional level between research andextension. The results should be available for the April meeting. The goal is to have aspecific proposal for the annual joint meeting with Southern Extension Directors in July,1996. Each Station has been asked to identify one or a few projects from their portfoliowhich appear to fit the description of agroecosystem research. These examples will beused by the above committee in their deliberations and development ofrecommendations.


Agenda Item 16

Assessment of Joint Southern Meeting (Clearwater)and Plans for Future Meetings

Presenter: Dr. Tom Helms

BACKGROUND

The first joint meeting of all parts of the Land Grant University Programs dealing withagriculture and natural resources was held in Clearwater, Florida last year under theaegis of the Southern Association of Administrative Heads of Agriculture. Separate butrelated meetings were held by individual components in conjunction with this meeting. We met jointly with Southern Extension Directors and held a brief joint session with our1890 counterparts during this time together.

The format for the general joint session included both plenary and break out sessionsand was organized to address and further define areas of mutual interest and concern. While this first session provided a useful “first-time” engagement, relatively little ofsubstance emerged.

It is the intent of the Administrative Heads to have another such meeting next year inArkansas.

The purpose of this agenda item is to provide a basis for discussion of how to make bestuse of the engagement and to fit into this gathering the several related activities that areneeded. It would also be fair to examine the question of whether we can be effective inholding other meetings in conjunction with this activity. The product of these discussionswill provide input to the organizing committee for the meeting. It would also be usefulto further consider how the Western Region conducts its sessions to take advantage oftheir longer and more extensive experience in such engagements.

ACTION REQUESTED

This is to be a general discussion directed to formation of specific recommendations forthe next meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

Dr. Tom Helms is chair of the program committee for the summer meeting ofagriculture programs which will be held in Fayetteville, Arkansas July 14-16, 1996. There is need to provide input to the meeting planning process to improve the qualityand effectiveness of the time together. It was concluded that consultation with Dr.Robert Heil, Western ED on the substance and process of their meeting might be useful. The West has been holding such meetings for a number of years and regards them asbeing useful.


Agenda Item 17

Plans for Engagement of 1890 Research Directors

Presenter: Dr. Tom Helms

BACKGROUND

It has been the intent of the Association to develop a more meaningful relationship withthe 1890 Agricultural Research Directors (ARDs) for more than two years. At the jointmeeting in July, 1995, a first joint sessions with these counterparts was held. It occurredat the end of the general meeting and, with time pressures and other factors, was reallynot much more than an introduction to possible future engagements.

There was an agreement to have future meetings, but not a commitment to a meaningfulagenda.

The purpose of this agenda item is to revisit the need for engagement, define ourproposal for specific areas of engagement and develop a plan to ensure a successful andmeaningful exchange. A measure of success of the next meeting would be thecommitment to some kind of joint activity to be undertaken on a continuing basis.

ACTION REQUESTED

Development of an action plan for developing a mutual commitment to making the nextmeeting meaningful and to enhancing the probability of success through carefularrangements of the logistics of the meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

It was agreed that we should continue to actively pursue an engagement with the 1890Research Directors. A joint planning and commitment to the meeting should be soughtwith the current chairman of the group and their ED, Dr. Sam Donald. A number ofitems identified for the last meeting agenda might be jointly reviewed. Items of commoninterest not covered in the more general meeting might be considered. The goal shouldbe some form of joint and ongoing engagement such as sharing and coordinatingstrategic plans.


Agenda Item 18

SAAESD Commitment To and Use of the World Wide Web

Presenter: Dr. Tom Helms

BACKGROUND

The Association has made the decision to make increasing use of the internet as a meansof communicating, publishing, storing information, and conducting various analyses atregional and state levels. Guidelines, Information for Southern Directors, national andregional strategic plans and related informational documents are now stored on theWWW and updated continuously. The data bases of the SMIS will increasing be keptseparately and made available on the web. The CRIS and other related data on currentactivities, both state and regional are now readily accessible on the net. Agendas andagenda briefs for our meetings, including background information for our PlanningGroups, and minutes of the meetings are being placed on the WWW. A protected (pass-word) method is being used to access data or information that is in draft form oradministratively sensitive.

The Association is seeking to use this methodology as the major feature of the process ofstreamlining our procedures and processes. Thus we are moving very rapidly to takeadvantages of the new electronic communications technology, but probably not as fast asthe world around us. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an opportunity fordiscussion of the commitment to use this vehicle in the offices of SAES Directors and tosee if there are obvious methods to enhance the utility of the Association’s materials. We should be ready to move to this medium without continuation of printed materials,provided there is uniform assurance that it will be effective. Our discussion could alsoexplore “what else” we should be doing.

ACTION REQUESTED

Discussion and resulting actions.

ACTION TAKEN

SAAESD Commitment to WWW: The following 14 uses of electronic communicationhave or are being implemented by the Association and its members:

a. Guidelines
b. Information for Southern Directors
c. Regional publications
d. Agenda and Agenda Briefs for meetings
e. Minutes of meetings
f. Committee reports
g. Requests to establish new or continuing activities
h. Proposals and processing of RRF projects
i. Reports of meetings of activities of the Association (Projects, IEGs, TFs, etc)
j. SAAESD Strategic Plan
k. Related national documents and reports
l. Newsletters
m. SMIS home page and data network
n. CRIS information accessed via the SAAESD Home Page

Members of the Association are encouraged to ensure that their staff are prepared toreceive and respond to electronic communications as this will be the primary method ofcommunication in the future. As the transition is made from fax/mail to electronicmethods, members offices will be provided a transition in which messages will be sentboth ways for a brief while. A combination of e-mail and WWW will be used, with theformer used to transmit one-time messages and the latter to provide reference materialthat is likely to be repeatedly used. The SMIS is being shifted from a stand-alone CD-ROM to a network with a home page on the WWW. USDA has made the CRIS dataaccessible electronically. As documents will be updated continuously in the new system,it will be important to reference dates when communicating about these materials.


Agenda Item 19

ESCOP Report

Presenter: Dr. Johnny Wynne

BACKGROUND

The representatives to ESCOP from the SAAESD are J. C. Wynne, 1996; Jerry Arkin,1997 and Tom Helms, 1998. The new chair of ESCOP is H. P. “Paul” Rasmussen fromUtah. ESCOP has been assessing its current function and future needs. The membersof the Experiment Station Section of NASULGC discussed the second draft of a whitepaper on this topic. A third draft and required actions to implement changes will occurduring this year. The new chair has indicated that ESCOP will emphasize partnershipsand communications during the year. Action committees are or will be concerned withthe following topics:

1. Relationships with USDA

2. Board on Agriculture Futuring Activities

3. Image Enhancement

4. Congressional Liaison Methods

5. Legislative and budget activities of ESCOP and ECOP

6. Relationship with NASULGC

7. House Agriculture Committee Questions and GAO Study

8. Relationships with AESOP Enterprises

ACTION REQUESTED

None, for information and discussion only.

ACTION TAKEN

ESCOP Report: A Directors Workshop has been scheduled for May 1-3, 1996 inWashington, DC. Information from the organizers is forthcoming; members areencouraged to participate. The report was informational.


Agenda Item 20

CSREES Report

Presenter: Dr. Bob Robinson

BACKGROUND

Dr. Bob Robinson, the new Administrator of CSREES, has been invited to join ourmeeting and make a presentation.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information and action resulting from discussion.

ACTION TAKEN

CSREES: Dr. Bob Robinson has undertaken the duties of Administrator of CSREES. The pass-backs on the 1997 budget have been received and the numbers look similar tothose of last year, which is outstanding, given the environment. Dr. Robinson plansbiweekly teleconferences with the Chairs of ECOP and ESCOP. CSREES will seek anopen and effective communication with partners; Dr. Robinson will attend as manyESCOP and ECOP meetings as possible. Colien Hefferan will continue to be in theAdministrators office for the foreseeable future. CSREES is supporting the DirectorsWorkshop in May.


Agenda Item 21

ARS Report

Presenter: Dr. Charles Onstad

BACKGROUND

Dr. Charles Onstad, AD for the ARS Southern Plains Area has been invited to present areport on the activities of that organization.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information.

ACTION TAKEN

ARS Report: This was an informational item and no actions were taken.

ARS Report

PERSONNEL CHANGES:

Dr. Bob Reginato, formerly Director, Pacific West Area, reports as AssociateAdministrator on February 5.

Dr. Phyllis Johnson, Associate director, Pacific West Area, is Acting Director for thePacific West Area.

Dr. Darwin Murrell, Director of the Beltsville Area and formerly Acting AssociateAdministrator, began a 6-month sabbatical to the Royal Veterinary and AgriculturalUniversity in Copenhagen, Denmark in mid-January.

Dr. Jan van Schilfgaarde, Associate Deputy Administrator for Natural Resources andSystems, NPS, is Acting Director for the Beltsville Area.

Dr. Gordon Marten, Associate Director, Beltsville Area, retired December 31, 1995.

Dr. Joe Spence, Director, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, is ActingAssociate Director for the Beltsville Area.

Dr. Dale Bucks, National Program Leader, NPS, is Acting Associate DeputyAdministrator for Natural Resources and Systems, NPS.

Dr. Robert Oltjen, Associate Deputy Administrator for Animal Sciences, NPS, retiredJanuary 3.

Dr. Thomas Sexton, Director, Livestock and Poultry Sciences Institute in Beltsville, isActing Associate Deputy Administrator for Animal Sciences, NPS.

Dr. Judy St. John has accepted permanent reassignment as Associate DeputyAdministrator for Plant Sciences, NPS.

Dr. George Foster, Direct, National Sedimentation Research Laboratory, Oxford, MS, isserving a four-month detail as Acting Associate Director of the Southern Plains Area.

Dr. Anna McClung became Research Leader of the Rice Research Unit, Beaumont, TXon January 3, 1996.

Dr. Robert Williams became Acting Laboratory Director for the National Water QualityResearch Laboratory in Durant, OK on January 3.

Dr. Donald C. Erbach, formerly at the National Soil Tilth Research Laboratory, Ames,IA became Research Leader of the Soil Dynamics Research Laboratory, Auburn, AL onJanuary 7.

Dr. Glenn W. Burton, Supervisory Research Geneticist and Research Leader for Forageand Turf Research at Tifton, GA celebrated the 60th anniversary of a distinguished andrenowned career with ARS on January 30, 1996.

Other retirements in the South are as follows:

Dr. Russell Bruce, Watkinsville, GA
Dr. George Langdale, Watkinsville, GA
Dr. Arlin Nicks, Durant, OK
Dr. Frank Schiebe, Durant, OK
Dr. Bill Webb, Beaumont, TX

RESEARCH UNIT CHANGES:

As instructed in the FY 96 Appropriations Bill, the following actions have been taken:

The Jackson, TN location has been converted to a worksite under the direction of theSoybean Production Research Unit, Stoneville, MS.

The Houma, LA location has been converted to a worksite under the Southern RegionalResearch Center in New Orleans. The real property at Houma is being conveyed to theAmerican Sugar Cane League.

The Brownwood, TX location has been converted to a worksite under the SouthernCrops Research Laboratory in College Station, TX. The real property is being conveyedto Texas A&M University.

At Mississippi State, MS, the Boll Weevil Research Unit and the Insect RearingResearch Unit were merged to form the Integrated Pest Management Research Unitwith Dr. Gerald McKibben as Research Leader.

At the Southern Regional Research Center an extensive reorganization of themanagement units has created six units from the original seven as follows:

Name of Unit Research Leader

Cotton Fiber Quality Research Dr. Al FrenchCotton Textile Chemistry Research Dr. Noelie BertoniereIndustrial Utilization Research Dr. Armand PeppermanFood and Feed Safety Research Dr. Thomas ClevelandFood Processing and Sensory Quality Dr. Elaine ChampagneCotton Textile Engineering Dr. Timothy Calimari

On January 19, the contract was signed to construct the $8.7 million National RiceGermplasm Evaluation and Enhancement Center (NRGEEC) at Stuttgart, AR. This willbe a 46,000 square foot facility containing offices, laboratories, seed storage, andgreenhouse space for 10 ARS scientists and 7 University of Arkansas scientists to becompleted in late 1997.


Agenda Item 22

Report from Extension Directors

Presenter: Dr. Hiram Palmertree

BACKGROUND

Dr. Palmertree will discuss items of mutual interest between our two Associations asviewed from the perspective of our colleagues in The Association of Southern ExtensionDirectors.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information.

ACTION TAKEN

Dr. Palmertree did not attend the meeting and no report was rendered.


Agenda Item 23

Government Performance and Results ActStatus and Future Plans

Presenter: Dr. Tom Helms

BACKGROUND

Since our last meeting in November, 1995, CSREES has conducted a major planningsession for GPRA in Memphis in December. A general approach and time-table havebeen established which is intended to provide a usable first product by the March, 1996deadline.

There has been an extensive involvement of individual directors and relatedadministrators from across the system in this process. Dr. Jerry Arkin, as former Chairof the Association, provides leadership for our inputs and he has involved othersincluding Drs. Helms and Coston in this process.

The purpose of this agenda item is to provide a forum for a CSREES representative todiscuss the current status of the planning for GPRA and its implications on individualSAESs in terms of new administrative requirements. Also, this provides an opportunityto discuss methods for effectively performing impact assessments at the regional and statlevels.

ACTION REQUESTED

Discussion and resulting actions.

ACTION TAKEN

GPRA: Dr. George Cooper led an active discussion of this effort, reviewing the resultsof the Memphis meeting and the actions following. The GPRA Council continues toform an interface between the partners. The deadline for completing the first report onGPRA remains mid-February. The effort at defining outcomes and indicators isunderway. It is stated that there will be opportunity to modify both the process andresults of early GPRA efforts. Dr. Cooper shared preliminary information on the statusof USDA efforts to date (attached). The SAESs continue to press for a recognition ofthe SAES-USDA strategy as the point of departure for research component of GPRArelated definitions of goals and outcomes. There is continuing concern that the processbeing undertaken could result in negative impact on the system because the process andthe products are essentially untried and unproven. USDA is encouraged to explicitlyrecruit individuals trained and experienced in impact assessment. There is continuingconcern that the impact of SAES research will be judged on the basis of indirect orsecondary variables require intermediate performance by other parties for the utility ofthe research product to be judged. The broader issue of accountability with Congress,the Administration and other stakeholders for the products of the SAES effort remainsof major importance. GPRA is but one of the several methods that must be used toconvey the utility of the products of research.


Agenda Item 24

News From the Hill

Presenter: Dr. Terry Nipp

BACKGROUND

The Washington world seems to be revolving at increasing speed when not encumberedby paralysis and weather. Long periods of total inactivity are interspersed with interludesof pure panic in which decisions totally fundamental to the future of the SAESs aremade in a matter or seconds or completely overlooked at the scramble for budgetbalancing operates at a macro-level well above our concerns.

In this wonderful world of snowflakes and other kinds of flakes, Dr. Terry Nipp (a non-flake) will provide us with a momentary snapshot of where we are in the Washingtonscene.

ACTION REQUESTED

Information, discussion and possible resulting actions

ACTION TAKEN

Dr. Terry Nipp provided a briefing on the status of the Farm Bill legislation and thepreparations for the budget hearings that will be coming up soon. The Washingtonenvironment remains very unsettled.


Agenda Item 25

Streamlining Procedures of the Association

Presenter: Dr. Neville Clarke

BACKGROUND

A process for evaluating the function of the Association with a view towards streamliningthe processes and procedures was initiated at the February, 1995 meeting and discussedagain at the April and November meetings. It was agreed that the Executive Directorwould propose revision to current guidelines with oversight by Drs. Arkin and Wynne –two previous chairs who have promoted these revisions.

The attached document contains these revisions, with deletions shown as strikeouts;while additions are underlined.

ACTION REQUESTED

Discussion, modification as necessary, and approval. The revised document will be puton the World Wide Web before the April meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

On the motion of Kriz, seconded by Coston, the February, 1996 draft of Guidelines forSouthern Directors was approved as submitted in agenda briefs. It was recognized thatfurther streamlining of procedures would entail modifying the fundamental procedures ofthe Association and would need to be debated in full meetings of the Association.

On the motion of Jubb, seconded by Kriz, a motion was passed calling for initiating theprocess for revision of the by-laws of the Association to reflect the USDA reorganizationand the establishment of CSREES as the USDA interface for the SAES partnership. The notice of intent to modify by-laws must be circulated to directors 60 days in advanceof the meeting at which action is considered.


Agenda Item 26

SMIS: Recommendations for Future ActionReport of the Ad-Hoc Committee on GIS/SMIS

Presenter: Dr. Johnny Wynne

BACKGROUND

The Ad-Hoc Committee on Application and use of GIS/SMIS was established byChairman Arkin following the July, 1995 meeting of the Association. The Committeewas asked to review examples of uses of data sets such as contained in the SMIS forresearch and development in applications that might be relevant to the use of the SMISin state and regional planning and/or impact assessment. The Committee used thisopportunity to discuss and make plans for the SMIS poster session to be held inconjunction with the February, 1996 meeting of the Association during the SAASmeetings in Greensboro, NC. The report of this committee’s deliberations is attached. It deals with:

  • Examples of Potential Use of SMIS
  • Agroecozone Mapping: A USDA/REE Initiative to Assess Utility and Duplication of Agricultural Research Sites
  • Applications of SMIS to GPRA and Other State Imposed SAES Impact Assessments
  • Use of GIS-Based Methods for Siting Research Locations
  • Natural Resource Based Planning For Agriculture and Forestry: A Way of the Future
  • Specific Proposals for Action
  • Introduction to the Poster Session

ACTION REQUESTED

Discussion and commitments on proposed actions.

ACTION TAKEN

The report of the ad-hoc committee on GIS/SMIS was briefly reviewed. The threeoptions for a pilot study to further explore the utility of the system was endorsed. It wasagreed that the Executive Director would solicit preparation of pre-proposals toundertake these pilot studies by one or a small group of Stations. The objective will beto have a definitive set of options for selection by the Association at its April, 1996meeting.

Attached is a list by title and presenter of a set of posters on use of the SMIS and/orrelated GIS methodology for planning and evaluation of research results. The postersession was attended by approximately ten members of the Association.


Report of The SAAESD Ad-Hoc Committeeon

Application and Use of GIS/SMIS

December 12, 1995

Purpose:

The Ad-Hoc Committee on Application and use of GIS/SMIS was established byChairman Arkin following the July, 1995 meeting of the Association. The Committeewas asked to review examples of uses of data sets such as contained in the SMIS forresearch and development in applications that might be relevant to the use of the SMISin state and regional planning and/or impact assessment. The Committee used thisopportunity to discuss and make plans for the SMIS poster session to be held inconjunction with the February, 1996 meeting of the Association during the SAASmeetings in Greensboro, NC.

Attendees
Dr. James R. Fischer (SC)
Dr. Richard Jones (FL)
Dr. Johnny Wynne (NC)
Ms. Renee Lambert (SC)
Dr. Ian Flitcroft (GA)
Dr. Paul Dyke (TX)
Dr. Neville P. Clarke (ED)
Drs. Coston, Nofziger, Helms, and Cosby were unable to attend.


Agenda
The agenda for the meeting was attached.

Background and Previous Meetings
The results of the summer meeting of IEG-67, which deals with the application and useof GIS based methodologies for research in the Southern Region included tworecommendations to enhance the vision of the Association on the use of the SMIS andGIS based methodologies for enhanced planning and impact assessment of research atthe state and regional level. These recommendations were (1) to ask this Ad-HocCommittee, comprised of both Directors and scientists using GIS methods, to “brain-storm” with the goal of identifying potential areas of meaningful application of the SMISand (2) to conduct a poster session on GIS applications at the February meeting of theSAAESD.

The SMIS is evolving from a self contained set of data bases prepared for anddistributed to individual SAESs in our region to a distributed set of data bases employingthe World Wide Web to link and use the information and methods that are being developed. Applications and methods for the SMIS are being developed by individualusers. A second generation set of general instructions describing recommendations foruse of the system was circulated to users following the last meeting of IEG-67. While a”point and click” capability is becoming increasingly feasible for certain applications ofthe SMIS, it seems likely that it will continue to have best use when administrators counton experienced technicians or scientists to perform apply the system to planning orimpact assessment.

A Home Page for the SMIS has been put up by Ms Renee Lambert at the SouthCarolina Station and serves as a means of communicating between users, identifying newdata sets available for use on the WWW, and giving general visibility to the system. MsLambert plans to put up the SMIS Home Page on the net as a separate entity to give itenhanced visibility. It was agreed that each SAES would be asked to identify the SMISHome Page in their Home Pages to enhance its visibility across the region.

It has been concluded that development of a “next-generation” SMIS should probablyawait further evaluation of the system in its present form along with the gatheringtogether of experiences of individual users, using the WWW home page.

From previous meetings, it has been suggested that the SMIS might find utility as a toolin aiding: (1) technical committees in the preparation of regional research projectproposals, (2) information exchange groups to focus on areas of common interest andresponsibility among states, and (3) advisory committees to focus planning and evaluationof the regional research portfolio during their deliberations. It is recognized that it willrequire a multidisciplinary approach to bringing the SMIS data bases and appropriateanalytical tools to bear on the questions that might be posed by these groups. The pointis that the best use of the SMIS might result from bringing together a mixture of expertswho have focused meaningful questions in specific fields and those skilled the use of GISmethodologies, who might facilitate and enhance the planning and evaluation activities.

It has also been suggested that the SMIS might find its first application best in the areaof impact assessment — a topic that is highly relevant at state, regional, and nationallevels. To this end, the Southern SARE-ACE program is undertaking the developmentof a SMIS based method of assessing the impact of its programs in the area ofsustainable agriculture. This is being linked to a larger national effort which is describedbelow.


Examples of Potential Use of SMISGreater Horn of Africa Initiative:

This refers to a GIS based description of geographic features across the area to assistplanners in the selection of germplasm to replace planting seed lost during war and otherdisasters in this region.

IRRI Agroecoregional Assessment of Germplasm:

This is a GIS based analysis to facilitate the development and selection of rice germplasm for ecoregional applications by the International Rice Research Institute.

SARE-ACE:

Impact assessment at regional or national level of research projects funded by thisprogram. The effort involves developing a description of the region (or nation) in termsof agroecological zones which define geographic areas (contiguous or non-contiguous)with common features that relate to the production of food, forest products and fiber. Through this method, it is intended that the ability to estimate the geographic extent ofapplication or impact of research results might be enhanced. The method is intended tofacilitate ex ante impact evaluation of research, help define comparative advantage oflocations.

USDA/REE Application of Agroecological Zones to Assessment of Utility ofResearch Sites:

Dr. Karl Stauber has called for a collaborative effort with the Georgia AES to expandthe application of the agroecological zone work to develop a short term “first-cut”approach to a geographic framework to assess the value of ARS and other researchlocations in terms of the breadth of application of their results. An early use may berelated to facilitating consideration of closure or consolidation of research sites. Recognizing that the immediate need for such a framework precludes a thoroughdevelopment of the capability, it is anticipated that an initial effort to produce a productin March, 1996 will be followed by a two year study to enhance the quality and utility ofthe method. The implications of this development are discussed further below.

Estimating Pesticide Run-Off vs Soil Types and Crops:

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has made use of the data contained in theSMIS to develop models that estimate pesticide run-off as a function of soil type, crops,and rainfall. This is allowing evaluation of various policy options for defining the USDAfarm programs and environmental options.

Use of GIS Methods to Evaluate the Impact of Releasing CRP Lands:

State and regional distribution of CRP lands has been undertaken by the OklahomaAES. Results expressed as a function of soil types, rainfall and other environmentalconditions show the distribution of CRP lands and the possible outcomes of their beingreleased from the program.

Research Planning CRIS and Macroeconomic Data Agricultural CensusData:

MAFES has developed a method for efficiently mobilizing the CRIS data along with AgCensus information to facilitate the planning of research.

ESCOP-EPA Joint Strategy:

ESCOP and EPA will conduct a joint strategic planning session in February, 1996 whereit will be proposed that a definition of agroecological zones for the U.S., building onprevious EPA definitions and results of the USDA/REE studies be used to facilitatejoint strategic planning.

Agroecozone Mapping: A USDA/REE Initiative to Assess Utility and Duplication of Agricultural Research Sites
As previously noted, the Griffin Station (GAES) proposed to Dr. Karl Stauber that thedevelopment of agroecological zones could be used to facilitate planning and evaluationof research; he noted the intent of the Southern SARE-ACE program (the managemententity is at Griffin) to attempt such a development. The Undersecretary wishes toexplore the short term utility of such a method to evaluate the use and possible overlapof research locations in ARS and other parts of USDA.

It appears that NRCS, ARS, FS, and EPA are working towards a common taxonomyinvolving the previously define major land resource areas (MLRAs).

A program involving the Griffin Station, the National Ecological Laboratory at FortCollins, and ARS scientists located at the Blacklands Research Center (Texas) has beeninitiated and a deliverable planned for March, 1996. The NRCS is also emerging as amajor player in this program.

The short term product is recognized as a compromise with available time and will focuson use of Major Land Resource Areas and physiographic characteristics as a point ofdeparture for defining an early version of agroecological zones which can perhaps beused for initial planning and strategic thinking about research sites.

The program anticipates use of climate maps, water availability data, major landresource areas, and thermal units to make an early pass at defining agroecological zones. A follow-on study plan is being prepared for an in-depth development of this approachand methods/constraints for its utility and application. In the more detailed study,commodities and other geographic features will need to be included.

An interesting questions is: what happens when SAESs and ARS locations show-upwithin the emerging definition of agroecosystems? It is important that ESCOP beaware of these studies, which are being jointly conducted by SAESs and federal partners. But, at this point, the state partner does not have an apparent seat at the policy tablewhere these results might be used for critical decision making. The ESCOPleadership will be made aware of these observations and recommendations for theiraction at the national level.

We have to worry about both national and international implications of the results of theanalyses emerging from these studies. Spill in and spill out are both relevant to futureresearch planning and use of this methodology and the information and results itproduces. Another interesting question is the extent to which the new Congress willuncouple agriculture as an industry from natural resource management.

Applications of SMIS to GPRA and Other State Imposed SAES Impact Assessments
Many (most) states are involved in some kind of impact assessment and are working onshort time lines. A series of questions were explored at this meeting including: (a) whatcan be done at the regional level to develop frameworks and/or methods to assist states,(b) what can states learn from each other — i.e. is there a useful “clearinghouse” functionto be done at the regional level, and (c) how can we build on the state experience tofacilitate regional cooperative activity. Final answers were not developed but should beexplored at the February meeting and with Advisory Committees.

State have imposed varying mandates on their LGU (SAES) on how they willdemonstrate utility and accountability, which limits the utility of methods developed atthe regional level for state application. However, it seemed to this group that somestandardized measures of assessing economic impact between/across states would beuseful in adding credibility.

Some standardized measures of assessing economic impact between/across states mightbe useful in adding credibility to analyses of individual SAESs. Several states are using avariant of the Oregon State impact assessment model; they find that some elements aremore believable than others — some parts which are not credible have the potential ofdetracting from the credibility of overall assessments. This model attributes an economicimpact by intra-state regions to all research projects at the Oregon Station. There maybe major merit in developing regional models which provide a basis for makingconsistent estimates of outcomes, where quantitative data may not exist or may be onlypartly in-hand, a common framework for common assumptions could be helpful. Forbroadly stated political goals, there is the problem of being able to attribute the resultsof research to goals which are impacted by other factors such as weather, policydecisions, etc.

Use of GIS-Based Methods for Siting Research Locations
SAES locations were selected for uniformity not diversity and this could limit their utilityin the context of research to support an environmentally sensitive agricultural production.While fraught with obvious political mine fields, the GIS based analysis may, haverelevant utility in planning strategy for locations of experiment stations and otherresearch locations, including regional consolidated research locations. If wedemonstrate that we are in the process of sorting out locations, we may get grace fromthe policy makers until it’s done properly.

It was noted in our discussions that off-campus locations have both research andeducation functions — which would have to be factored into the decision making onutility.

Natural Resource Based Planning For Agriculture and Forestry: A Way of the Future
The agenda for an environmentally sound system of production of food, fiber andforestry products is one force which is driving the SAESs towards natural resource basedplanning — i.e. considering the natural resource base and the impact of production on itas one key factor in experimental design of research on production.

Efficient use of resources for research is driving the system towards defining the impactof research at one location in terms of its applicability to other locations falling insimilar agroecological zones. This has implications for the location and duplication ofresearch sites.

EPA and NRCS are involved in regulatory and policy planning that deals with theproduction of food and fiber at the watershed level, watersheds that may involve multiplestates. Their consideration of bioregional zones overlays the definition of agroecologicalzones and offers common ground for planning and conducting research on watersheds,bays and estuaries and larger landscapes. The environmental agenda will be driven byGIS based management systems — the need to plan and conduct research that isapplicable to basin and watershed levels is upon the SAESs. Watersheds that cross statelines could be a factor in planning regional research.

In many states, other agencies of government are already well into using GIS basedsystems for planning and decision making. SAESs need to be able to interact with theseagencies in addressing topical issues that involve multiple parts of state government. Theability to make this engagement effectively is quite different among Southern SAESs.

GIS based environmental and other relevant geographic definitions may be helpful inplanning strategies to deal with outbreaks of exotic plant and animal disease.

A pilot study commissioned by SAAESD and conducted by one or more states todevelop an example of how resource based planning might work is recommended.

Actions:

1. Bring this agenda to the meeting of chairs of advisory committees

2. Advise ESCOP of the REE effort and assure policy level input to the use of the early models

3. Continue to examine the utility of a “point and click” capability for the SMIS

4. Determine when/how much to involve extension — some extension thinking might be more useful than some experiment station thinking.


Poster Session on the Use of GIS Methodologyfor Planning and Evaluation of Research
The following are the titles of Posters to be presented following this meeting:

Watershed Planning and Management Dr. Paul Dyke, TX

GIS Aids Planning & Decision-Making Dr. David Nofziger, OKBy Providing Useful and Up-to-dateSummaries of the Present

Alabama AESs GIS and Related Information on WWW Ms. Kate Ozalas, AL

Use of GIS-Based Tools for Planning & Evaluation Dr. Ian Flitcroft, GASERA-ACE (two separate poster presentations)


Agenda Item 27

SAAESD Leadership

ACTION TAKEN

SAAESD Leadership: With the appointment of Dr. Tom Helms as Executive Director,the following actions were taken:

(a) Dr. Helms resigns as Chair of the Association effective at the end of this meeting.

(b) On the motion of Wynne, seconded by Boling, the Association unanimously voted to elect Dr. D. C. Coston to fill the unexpired term of Dr. Helms and to also fill the full term of office in the year following. The Association also intended for this to include membership on ESCOP as called for in the guidelines.

(c) On the motion of Scifres, seconded by Fischer, the Association voted to ask the Nominating Committee to recommend a replacement for Dr. Coston as Chair Elect so that final actions may be taken at the April, 1996 meeting.

(d) On the motion of Jones, seconded by Scifres, the Association voted unanimously to ask Dr. Jerry Arkin, immediate past Chair, to serve as interim Vice Chair, until this position can be filled by election in April.


Agenda Item 28

Arrangements for the April, 1996 Meeting

Presenter: Dr. C. J. Scifres

ACTION TAKEN

Arrangements for the April, 1996 Meeting. Arkansas is the host state for the Springmeeting. Dr. Scifres noted that the meeting will be held April 22-24, 1996 inFayetteville. Sleeping rooms will be at the Fayetteville Hilton at the rate of $52.00 permight (single or double). The University of Arkansas will host a reception on theevening of Sunday April 21, 1996. Dinner will be at James Mill on Monday evening. Tysons Foods will host a lakeside buffet on Tuesday evening. Spouses will have theopportunity to visit botanical gardens and shop on Tuesday. Members may expect earlycommunication from the University of Arkansas with further details and pre-meetingregistration information.