March 24-27, 2002 Meeting Minutes

SAAESD Spring Meeting
March 24-27, 2002
Westin Savannah Harbor Resort
Savannah, GA


Participants  |  Action Items  |  Agenda


General Schedule

Sunday, March 24:
6:00 – 7:00pm – Informal Reception – Riverscape RoomMonday, March 25:
8:30 – 5:00 – SAAESD meeting
9:00 – 4:30 – Guest activity
6:00 – 9:00 – Savannah Riverboat Cruise
Tuesday, March 26:
8:30 – 11:45 – SAAESD meeting
8:00 – 11:45 – Guest activity
Noon – 5:30 – Tour of International Paper, Inc.
7:00 – 10:00 – Dinner at the Pirate’s HouseWednesday, March 27:
8:30 – noon – SAAESD meeting

Participants

SAAESD:
Jerry Arkin, GA
David Boethel, LA
David Bridges, GA
William F. Brown, FL
William H. Brown, LA
Jerry Cherry, GA
D. C. Coston, OK
Nancy Cox, MS
Mary Duryea, FL
Jim Fischer, SC
Marty Fuller, MS
Frank Gilstrap, TX
Kriton Hatzios, VA
T. J. Helms, Exec. Dir.
Robin Huettel, AL
Richard Jones, FL
Skip Jubb, VA
Tom Klindt, TN
Fred Knapp, KY
Ron Lacewell, TX
Steven Leath, NC
David Morrison, LA
Roland Mote, TN
Alberto Pantoja, PR
Jim Rakocy, VI
Anna Marie Rasberry
Charles Scifres, TX
Bob Shulstad, GA
Neal Thompson, FL
Clarence Watson, MS
Vance Watson, MS
Bob Westerman, OK
Greg Weidemann, AR
Eric Young, NC
Liaisons:
Gary Cunningham, CSREES
Charles Onstad, ARS
Christine Waddill, ASREDOther guests:
David Brune, Clemson
Gale Buchanan, AHS-GA
Roy Cantrell, Cotton Inc.
Mary Marchant, ESCOP Intern, KY
Norm Nesheim, Pest Mgt. Center
Gary Pederson, S-009
Liesel Ritchie, SSRC

Action Items

  • Agenda Item 10: MAPs – SAAESD endorsed the MAPs concept.
  • Agenda Item 11: IPM Facilitator – SAAESD endorsed the proposal to hire a Southern Region IPM facilitator from CSREES funds to assist both the Pest Management Center and the IPM Grants Program Manager, at no cost to Southern Directors. The facilitator should be located at one of the Southern Region institutions.
  • Agenda Item 12: IPM Grants Program – SAAESD approved elimination of SR-IPM pre-proposals to be replaced with letters of intent.
  • Agenda Item 14: NRSP-3 Renewal – SAAESD approved renewal of NRSP-3 as presented.
  • Agenda Item 17: SERA Study Committee – SAAESD approved the recommendation that at least one of the two SERA administrative advisors should be from AES or CES, with the other being a department head if desired. Implementation of this decision should occur when an activity requests renewal.
  • Agenda Item 23: Exellence in Leadership Award – SAAESD approved proposal to establish an Excellence in Leadership Award.
  • Agenda Item 27: Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting –
    • Drs. Vance Watson and Jon Ort (chairs of SAAESD and ASRED, respectively) will write Drs. Boethel and Neishem (SERA-IEG-3 advisor and SR-Pest Management Center, respectively) regarding plan for facilitator and the future of the position.
    • The Data Support Project with the Social Science Research Center was approved for one year at $40,000. Use of funds collected from projects outside the region will help decrease assessment for SAAESD in succeeding years.
    • SAAESD budget will remain with a level assessment for the 7th year in a row. Carryover funds will be used to cover payout expenses for Dr. Helms, etc.
    • SAAESD requested budget, with cost of living salary increases (3%), was approved.
  • Agenda Item 29: NRSP-1 – Budget request of $240,800 unanimously approved without caveat.
  • Agenda Item 30: NRSP-3 – Budget request of $116,143 unanimously approved with caveat.
  • Agenda Item 31: NRSP-4 – Budget request of $481,182 unanimously approved with caveat.
  • Agenda Item 32: NRSP-5 – Budget request of $268,005 unanimously approved with caveat.
  • Agenda Item 33: NRSP-6 – Budget request of $165,428 approved on 8/7 vote with caveat.
  • Agenda Item 34: NRSP-8 – Budget request of $380,000 unanimously approved with caveat.
  • Agenda Item 35: S-009 – Budget request of $395,643 unanimously approved with caveat.
  • Agenda Item 40: Amendments to SAAESD By-Laws – SAAESD approved amendments to SAAESD By-Laws changing the term of office to begin with the conclusion of the annual fall meeting of the Association.
  • Agenda Item 44: Resolutions Committee Report – Resolutions were adopted for Dr. Allen Dunn, Dr. Diane Smathers, Dr. Calvin Shoulties, and The University of Georgia meeting hosts.

Agenda

Monday, March 25
Time Agenda # Agenda Item – Presenter
7:30 Continental Breakfast
8:30 Passing the Gavel – William H. Brown to Vance H. Watson
8:40 Welcome and Introductions – Vance Watson
9:00 1. Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions – Vance Watson
9:05 ESCOP Core Committee Reports:
2. · Advocacy and Marketing – Jim Fischer
3. · Budget and Legislative – Richard Jones
4. · Science and Technology – Nancy Cox
5. · Partnerships – D.C. Coston
6. · Planning – Eric Young
7. · Executive Committee – T. J. Helms
9:45 8. ESCOP Science Roadmap – T. J. Helms
10:00 Break
10:30 9. ESCOP Science Roadmap Capacity Analysis – Richard Jones and Eric Young
10:45 10. Multiple Activity Programs (MAPS) – T. J. Helms and Eric Young
11:15 11. IPM Program Facilitator – Fred Knapp and Norm Nesheim
11:45 12. IPM Grants Program – Fred Knapp
12:00 Lunch
1:00 13. NRSP-4/IR-4 – Neal Thompson
1:15 14. NRSP-3 Review and Project Renewal Request – Jerry Arkin
1:30 15. Update and Instruction on NIMSS – Anna Marie Rasberry
1:40 16. Multistate Research Committee Report – Nancy Cox
1:45 17. SERA Study Committee – Skip Jubb
2:00 18. Update: Association of Southern Region Extension Directors (ASRED) – Christine Waddill
2:10 19. Update: Agricultural Research Service (ARS) – Chuck Onstad
2:30 20. Update: Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC) – William H. Brown
2:45 21. Update: CSREES – Gary Cunningham
3:00 Break
3:30 22. Update: Southern Region Data Support Project – Jay Ritchie
4:00 23. Discussion of “Excellence in Leadership” Award – Charles Scifres
4:15 24. Sun Grant Initiative – Tom Klindt and D. C. Coston
4:30 25. Executive Director Position: Process and Issues – William H. Brown
5:00 Adjourn
Tuesday, March 26
7:30 Continental Breakfast
7:30 Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting –
8:30 26. Report from Southern Region Administrative Heads – Gale Buchanan
8:45 27. Report from Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting – Vance H. Watson
9:00 28. Executive Director’s Annual Report – T.J. Helms
9:10 Off-the-top Funding: NRSP’s FY03 Budget Requests:
29. · NRSP-1 – Eric Young
30. · NRSP-3 – Jerry Arkin
31. · NRSP-4 – Neal Thompson
32. · NRSP-5 – D.C. Coston
33. · NRSP-6 – Eric Young
34. · NRSP-8 – Jerry Cherry
9:40 35. S-009 FY03 Budget Request – Jerry Arkin and Gary Pederson
10:00 Break
10:15 36. Cloning Cattle and Stem Cell Research – Jerry Cherry / Steven Stice [Cancelled]
10:45 37. Biobased Industries/Economy – Jim Fischer / David Brune
11:45 Adjourn
Wednesday, March 27
7:30 Continental Breakfast
8:30 38. Review Requests for New or Modified Activities – Vance Watson
8:45 39. Cotton Incorporated Breeding and Genetics Initiative – Roy Cantrell
9:00 40. By-Laws Amendments – T. J. Helms
9:15 41. Multistate Research Guidelines Amendments – T. J. Helms
9:30 42. NRSP Survey – George Cooper and Liesel Ritchie
10:00 Break
10:30 43. Upcoming meetings – Vance Watson
10:40 44. Resolutions Committee Report – William F. Brown and Roland Mote
10:45 45. Roundtable Discussion: State Budget Situations – Vance Watson
11:15 46. Additional announcements/discussions, adjournment – Vance Watson

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

Presenter: Vance Watson

Background: The following items will be presented for approval:

 

  • Agenda
  • Minutes from the August, 2001 meeting
  • Interim Actions:
    • Letter to Sam Curl expressing SAAESD opinion that Southern Region Land-Grant Conference is not necessary in its present form.
    • Appointed Robin Huettel as one of the southern region representatives to the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee.
    • Appointed William H. Brown as one of the southern region representatives to the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee.
    • Appointed Jerry Arkin as one of the southern region representatives to the ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee.
    • Appointed William F. Brown as one of the southern region representatives to the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee.
    • Appointed David Boethel as one of the southern region representatives to the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee.
    • Appointed Frank Gilstrap as one of the southern region representatives to the ESCOP Planning Committee.
    • Appointed Gerald Jubb as one of the southern region representatives to the ESCOP Planning Committee.
    • Appointed Gerald Jubb as member of the Multistate Research Committee.
    • Appointed Charles Scifres as member of the Joint Cotton Breeding Committee.
    • Solicited input from Chief Operating Officers on needed changes to the Executive Director Position Description.
    • Appointed John Hayes as AES Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-4, “Mechanization and Post Harvest Technology of Fruits and Vegetables,” replacing Calvin Schoulties.
    • Appointed Gerald Jubb as AES Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-29, “Black Fly Biology, Economic Problems, and Management,” replacing Calvin Schoulties.
    • Appointed Steven Leath as Administrative Advisor to AC-11, “Plant Pathology Advisory Committee,” replacing Steve Lommel.
    • Appointed Jim Moran as Administrative Advisor to AC-14, “Human Nutrition Advisory Committee,” replacing Dianne Smathers.
    • Appointed Susan Barefoot as Administrative Advisor to S-295, “Enhancing Food Safety Through Control of Food-Borne Disease Agents,” replacing Janet Johnson.
    • Appointed Susan Barefoot as AES Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-2, “Enhancing Food Safety Through Control of Foodborne Disease Agents,” replacing Janet Johnson.
    • Appointed Robert Shulstad as Administrative Advisor to S-278, “Food Demand, Nutrition and Consumer Behavior,” replacing John Dooley.
    • Appointed Jerry Arkin as southern region Administrative Advisor to NRSP-3, “The National Atmospheric Deposition Program,” replacing Allen Dunn.
    • Appointed a Search Committee (William H. Brown – Chair, Charles Scifres, Richard Jones, and Jim Fischer) for the Executive Director position.
    • Appointed Roland Mote as member of the Southern Rural Development Center Advisory Committee.
    • Appointed Roland Mote as Administrative Advisor to S-1004, “Development and Evaluation of TMDL Planning and Assessment Tools and Processes,” replacing Jerry Arkin.
    • Appointed Terry Kizer as AES Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-15, “Competitiveness and Sustainability of the Southern Dairy Industry,” replacing Ken Esbenshade.
    • Appointed William F. Brown as member and chair of the 2002 Resolutions Committee.
    • Appointed Roland Mote as member of the 2002 Resolutions Committee.
    • Appointed John Sherwood as Administrative Advisor to IEG-52, “Mycotoxins in Food and Feed Grains,” replacing O. W. Barnett.

Action Requested: Approval.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Coston/Scifres, agenda, minutes and interim actions were approved.


Agenda Item 2.
ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee

Presenter: Jim Fischer

Background: The committee has not met since it last report (in November, 2001 to the ESCOP Executive Committee). The committee made the following presentation to the ESCOP meeting on March 4, 2002. Two ongoing activities are progressing.

  • The Committee has served as a resource to the Science Roadmap summary development. Comments were shared with the summary developers. Additionally, A & M has proposed to work on an additional one-pager version suitable for congressional staff and elected officials.
  • A series on how to communicate the benefits of research outcomes to decision makers is being sponsored by the Committee. One publication has been approved by the Committee, and will be published by NASULGC. The title of that publication is “Stating the Impact of Research”, and will include text plus a video CD of an exemplary presentation.. Two other topics are being developed on “Communicating With Congress” and “The Mission of the Land Grant University”.

At the March 2002 meeting, the committee requested that ESCOP give consideration to alignment with the new committee structure of BAA. The point to be considered is BAA’s committee structure is “Budget and Advocacy”. ESCOP presently splits these responsibilities; an action taken after trying to contain these assignments in one large Budget, Legislative, Advocacy, and Marketing Committee.

Options include having a separate ESCOP committee to focus just on Marketing, while having advocacy joined to budget and legislative activity, to match better with BAA. Discussions with BAA, AESOP, Enterprises, and ECOP should be encouraged, to help set out the options and assess the costs and benefits of these options.

At the March 2002 meeting, A&M requested that ESCOP assign responsibility for investigating the current ESCOP committee structure vis-à-vis budget, legislative, advocacy, and marketing, with the intent of making recommendations back to ESCOP on possible reconfigurations.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 3.
ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee

Presenter: Richard Jones

Background: Since the last report of the B/L Comm, we have held two teleconferences, one to decide operating procedure (12/13/01) and the other to review the President’s budget (02/07/02). The following actions were taken:

Operating Protocol for B/L Comm:

  1. An Executive Committee will consist of Chair, Chair-designate, Executive Vice chair, ECOP representative to the committee, and advocacy firm representative.
  2. A calendar was established for teleconferences and deadlines for action for 2002.
  3. The Chair-designate will track on legislative affairs of interest to ESCOP and this committee.
  4. The B/L Comm will consider a recommendation to the ESCOP Exec Comm re: reorganization of ESCOP committees to parallel those of BAA after operating experience in 2002.

Other Items:

  1. Sun Grant Initiative(SGI): Kevin Kephart informed Daryl Lund that CSREES has asked Kevin for initial information on the SGI and has allocated $523,802 for a planning grant to SDSU. The purpose of the planning grant is to establish the parameters for a competitively funded SGI. Planning will be conducted by South Dakota State University, University of Tennessee, Oklahoma State University, Oregon State University and Cornell University.
  2. Follow up to SUNEI: Chair of B/L recommended that ESCOP chair ask the Sci/Tech Comm to follow up on SUNEI report.
  3. The B/L Comm developed and transmitted to the A/M Comm the budgetary impact of the Science Roadmap for Agriculture.
  4. Farm Bill. The Senate and House both passed a Farm Bill. It is now in conference committee. The good news is the amendment that was added re: IFAFS. From Terry Nipp: “The Senate passed an amendment introduced by Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to limit payments to farmers and ranchers to $275,000 annually. The funds recaptured by this payment cap are designated for distribution to a food stamp, beginning farmer programs, and IFAFS. The last draft language we have had access to put the IFAFS increase at $100 million annually, raising total IFAFS funding to $225 million. The passage of this amendment would also supercede the funding block placed on IFAFS in FY02.” Fy ’02 funding would be $130M.
  5. Science Roadmap for Agriculture: The B/L Comm provided a report to the Advocacy and Marketing Committee on the impact of the Science Roadmap on federal funding for research in agriculture. The B/L Comm endorses the Science Roadmap as a guide for setting priorities for budgets. The Roadmap is assumed to be a guide for N-CFAR and NASULGC initiatives.

President’s Budget:

  1. The B/L polled its members regarding the recommendations for CSREES budget (see following recommendation from Terry Nipp to BAA/BAC). The major concern is the elimination of the IFAFS funds and the apparent off set by an increase in the NRI. If this action holds throughout the budget process, the B/L Committee recommends a change in the description for the use of the NRI funds so that more practical research can be targeted (as the programs were described in the IFAFS program). The B/L Committee also recommended to the BAC that the components of the agrosecurity request be prioritized in the event that the budgeted increase is less than $225M. Results were to support the recommendations for distribution of the CSREES increase as Terry has described them.Memo from Terry to Tom Payne and Fred Cholick:
    During the BAC Teleconference we decided to endorse the President’s proposed increase of $120 million for the NRI, with the stimulations that we still supported IFAFS and that we would not support the increase in the NRI at the cost of IFAFS. We also talked about leaving the NRI out or our recommended increase of $212 million to address agro-security.

    As we’ve been editing the draft 1-pager, we’ve been pondering our numbers as well. If we recommend the increase in the NRI of $120 million AND support an increase of $212 million for agro-security AND we support the restoration and expansion of IFAFS with a $100 million increase…we’re approaching half a billion dollars in increases. Somebody might not believe us.

    One option we’ve worked on would be to include the proposed increase of $120 million for the NRI in our budget, with the proposal that it all be dedicated towards agro-security issues. We’ve redistributed some funds and we’ve ended up with a net proposal of $225 million, which is higher that $212 million but less than $332 million (120+212). In doing this, we followed ICOP’s request to be left out and we kept the Extension numbers as they were. Only ESCOP would be affected by this recommendation, which means smaller proposed increases for Sec. 406 and research formula funds.

  2. The B/L Comm reviewed the one pager developed by BAA/BAC describing the budget request.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 4.
ESCOP Science and Technology Committee

Presenter: Nancy Cox

Background: An update on activities of this committee will be presented.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Brief updates were provided on 1) Ag Biotechnology Implementation Task Force; 2) Social Science Subcommittee; 3) Food Safety; 4) Genomics; and 5) Science Roadmap.


Agenda Item 5.
ESCOP Partnerships Committee

Presenter: D. C. Coston

Background: An update on the status of this committee will be presented.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Reports from the February 2002 Partnership Workshop are available on the ESCOP webpage. CSREES input and responsiveness to discussions generated during the Workshop were noted. A new partnership activity including ACOP, ICOP, ECOP, and CSREES is being explored.


Agenda Item 6.
ESCOP Planning Committee

Presenter: Eric Young

Background: The minutes of all Committee meetings and various working documents are available on the Committee web site athttp://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/plan00.htm#Action.

Continuing the ESCOP-PC’s charge of linking planning with budget development, future research priorities were identified by the Directors at the September, 2001 SAES/ARD Workshop in Idaho. The resulting deliberation established Agro-security as the highest priority area for an ESCOP budget initiative. Details of the Workshop priority setting can be found in a PowerPoint presentation accessible from the ESCOP Workroom. Agro-security is now the primary NASULGC Board on Agriculture budget initiative from ESCOP for the FY ’03 budget.

The ESCOP-PC coordinated a request distributed to 45 directors of state agricultural experiment stations in 1862 and 1890 institutions to estimate the appropriate mix of faculty expertise that will be required to address each challenge area identified in the “Science Roadmap for Agriculture”. Twenty-two directors responded with estimates for each field of science in each challenge area. This information was passed to the Budget & Legislative Committee to develop and justify federal budget requests to increase the agricultural research system’s capacity and support in expertise/discipline areas with the greatest need.

As a follow-up on two action items from the Partnership Workshop held in February 2001, the ECOP / ESCOP Joint Planning Committee (JPC), including several CSREES representatives, developed a joint document describing a shared vision for the partnership and a process for establishing joint national initiatives. This document was subsequently accepted by the ESCOP and ECOP Executive Committees and by CSREES. The vision is as follows:

Vision
The Partnership functions in an environment of harmony and trust and creates alliances around mutual issues and opportunities. These alliances create and expand mutual programs, projects and activities to better serve the public.

Definitions

  • Partners: Partners currently refer to the cooperative extension system, agricultural experiment stations, academic programs, international programs and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES).
  • Alliance: An alliance exists when two or more Partners and/or other entities develop a mutually agreed upon written program or project based on a priority issue which is intended to result in joint outcomes.

The complete document is available at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/partnership-vision.pdf.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 7.
ESCOP Executive Committee

Presenter: T. J. Helms

Background: Highlights from the March 4-5 ESCOP meeting will be presented, including the following:

  • Alliance for Animal Genomics Research (View presentation by Kellye Eversole.)

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Additional items highlighted were:

  • Multiple Activity Programs (MAPs) – to be discussed as Agenda Item 10.
  • Ag Biosecurity Task Force appointed.
  • C. Kaltenbach was voted SAES representative to Board on Agriculture Assembly’s (BAA) Policy Board (PB) for a one-year term; replacement will need to be named at the fall ESS meeting.
  • Update on ESCOP’s relation to the Advocacy organization –
    • The contract will be bid-out in future years.
    • The advocacy organization will primarily serve BAA Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC).
    • ESCOP could hire an additional advocacy organization for specific purposes.
  • NASULGC (under BAC directive) will send invoices for assessment to all members of Policy Board – not just ECOP and ESCOP.
  • Residual funds (approximately $400,000) will be used to start a new advocacy cycle; then over three years, funds will be returned to ESCOP/ECOP: 50% first year, 25% second year, 25% final year.
  • ESCOP’s $200,000 could be used for strategic political marketing such as hiring groups to poll key districts to determine issues on which to focus.
  • Homeland Security Task Force has generated two white papers showing 1) how the resources of the SAES system can be focused on providing agro-security to the nation; and 2) suggestions for securing research programs (See Site Security and Bio-Terrorism). In addition, this task force, in cooperation with ECOP, is exploring development of a National Center for Agro-Security. (The ESCOP agenda brief on the Homeland Security Task Force was distributed and is available on request from the Executive Director’s office.)

Agenda Item 8.
ESCOP Science Roadmap

Presenter: T. J. Helms

Background: The ESCOP Science Roadmap for Agriculture has been completed and appears on both the NASULGC and ESCOP websites at:

http://www.escop.msstate.edu/roadmap2.pdf orhttp://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Agriculture/Science%20Roadmap2.pdf

To facilitate information exchange about the now completed Science Roadmap, and to begin to garner financial resources, a summary document has been prepared for general distribution. The four-page document has the essence of the Science Roadmap plus information on the human and financial resources that will be necessary to implement the activities described in the Roadmap. Copies of both documents may be obtained from the Executive Director’s office.

The Roadmap is organized around seven Challenge Areas with four objectives under each as follows:

Challenge 1. We can develop new and more competitive crop products and new uses for diverse crops and novel plant species.

  1. Improving crop biomass quantities, qualities and agricultural production efficiencies;
  2. Conceiving new markets for new plant products, and new uses for those crops;
  3. Developing technologies to improve processing efficiency of crop bio-products (e.g., bio-fuels, pharmaceuticals; functional foods); and,
  4. Supporting the development of marketing infrastructure for crop bio-products.

Challenge 2. We can develop new products and new uses for animals.

  1. Improving conventional technologies as well as developing new technologies to improve the efficiency of animal production;
  2. Enhancing the value of food and other animal products for both the producer and consumer by utilizing conventional and newly developed technologies that are sociall and ethically acceptable;
  3. Developing innovative technologies to reduce the impacts of animal agriculture on the environment; and,
  4. Developing new and enhanced technologies for the improved efficiency and welfare of animals that are processed for food.

Challenge 3. We can lessen the risks of local and global climatic change on food, fiber, and fuel production.

  1. Diminishing the rate of long-term global climatic change by increasing the storage of carbon and nitrogen in soil, plants, and plant products;
  2. Minimizing the effects of long-term global climatic changes on production of crops and livestock;
  3. Integrating long-term weather forecasting, market infrastructures, and cropping and livestock management systems to rapidly optimize domestic food, fiber, and fuel production in response to global climatic changes; and,
  4. Creating broad-based comprehensive models to assess the socioeconomic impacts, risks, and opportunities associated with global climate change and extreme climate events on agriculture.

Challenge 4. We can provide the information and knowledge needed to further improve environmental stewardship.

  1. Developing better methods to protect the environment both on and beyond the farm from any negative impacts of agriculture through optimum use of cropping systems, including agroforestry, phytoremediation, and site-specific management;
  2. Decreasing our dependence on chemicals with harmful effects to people and the environment by optimizing their use in effective weed, pest, and pathogen management strategies;
  3. Finding alternative uses for the wastes generated by agriculture; and,
  4. Developing better economic models and incentives to assure that environmental stewardship is encouraged.

Challenge 5. We can improve the economic return to agricultural producers.

  1. Designing improved decision support systems for risk-based management farming (giving full consideration to small-, medium- and large-scale enterprises);
  2. Developing sustainable production systems that are profitable and protective of the environment, including finding ways to optimize the integration of crop and livestock production systems;
  3. Developing better understanding of how local, regional, national and global food economies affect the economic return to agricultural producers in the U. S.; and,
  4. Finding ways to improve on strategies for community-supported food production systems.

Challenge 6. We can strengthen our communities and families.

  1. Enhancing the problem solving capacities of rural communities through leadership development;
  2. Stimulating entrepreneurship and small business development in rural communities and new forms of economic activity built around regional trade associations, rural cooperatives, and local production networks;
  3. Building coalitions among environmental, labor, and community development groups to facilitate democratic social change to ensure that families have access to health care, education, and other welfare services; and,
  4. Determining strategies to enhance the well-being of families and individuals.

Challenge 7. We can insure improved food safety and health through agricultural and food systems.

  1. Improving the nutritional value of foods;
  2. Developing technologies to create health-promoting foods;
  3. Discovering better educational methods to help individuals make informed food choices; and,
  4. Eliminating food borne illnesses.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Copies of the Roadmap and Overview Summary were distributed and are also available on the ESCOP webpage in the ESCOP Workroom.


Agenda Item 9.
ESCOP Science Roadmap Capacity Analysis

Presenter: Richard Jones and Eric Young

Background: During the final stages of development of the Science Roadmap a parallel activity was undertaken to develop a method for determining current scientific capacity for each of the Roadmap challenges and the objectives under each. These data were then used by the ESCOP Planning Committee to determine the Scientist Years (SYs) by discipline (field of science) needed to complete the stated objectives. Subsequently, the Budget and Legislative Committee developed estimates of the financial resources needed annually to support this scientific effort.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: A supplemental support document entitled “Federal Funding Required to Meet the Science Challenges in Agriculture and Food Systems” was distributed. This document, as well as a powerpoint presentation, are available on the ESCOP webpage in the ESCOP Workroom.


Agenda Item 10.
New Formula Fund Multiple Activity Programs (MAPS)

Presenter: T. J. Helms
[as reported to ESCOP by Colin Kaltenbach]

Background: Obtaining increases in formula funds for Research and Extension has been difficult despite being a priority of the NASULGC budget request. The OMB and others would like to be able to trace any increases in formula funds for purposes of accountability. Priority topic areas such as food safety, biotechnology, or environmental protection are difficult to trace as new outlays under our current system of reporting.

Purpose

In response to a concern that the Land Grant System is not able to adequately track the expenditure of new formula funds, earmarked or not, a Task Force was appointed by ESCOP and ECOP to develop a process that would address this issue. The taskforce has developed a series of program descriptions that align with current national budget priorities but can be adapted to fit within each region’s administrative process. Called MAPs (for Multiple Activity Programs), these programs would serve as the organizing frameworks for tracking new formula funded initiatives of national scope, and for reporting results and impacts. Adaptation to regional and institutional needs would be encouraged through modification of the specific strategies within each region. It is believed that the authority to create MAPS exists through the Multistate Research Fund legislation, and that the management of the MAPs through the regional associations would be cost effective. The MAPS process is intended to allow tracking of “new” formula dollars but it could also be developed to track current activities and expenditures in any area of interest to Congress, i.e. Food Safety, Water Quality, etc.

Four example program descriptions, based on FY02 Board on Agriculture Budget Committee priorities, have been developed by the taskforce. These are: Secure a Dependable Food Supply, Community Opportunities, Investing in an Educated Workforce, and Environmental Balance. These were developed as “framework” proposals that might be used as guidelines to develop, track and report on programs of national scope funded with new formula funds. It is recommended that the MAPS concept be reviewed and adapted to fit within each region’s administrative process.

Management

Key management concepts for the MAPs are as follows. The MAPs would:

  • Be national in scope to address national initiatives
  • Be multistate and multi-disciplinary
  • Be functionally integrated in most, but not all, cases
  • Be handled at regional levels through a system similar to that utilized in the Multistate Research Program wherein projects are developed and approved by the Regional Association. Fund management is retained by the individual Director.
  • Allow reporting of accomplishments through the Directors’ Plans of Work; however, the regional associations of experiment station and extension directors might establish regional activities (e.g., SERA-IEG) focused on a MAPs topic with scientists and specialists being expected to report at the regional level. In this situation, Directors would still report accomplishments through their Plans of Work, but report as regional or multi-state efforts, in a form that could be consolidated at the national level. Inputs, collaborations, outputs and outcomes could be collated at the national level for the purposes of reporting to the USDA and Congress.
  • Call for all formula fund increases for a particular MAP to be expended by each state on objectives that contribute to the goals of the particular MAP.

Questions/Issues Still to be Resolved

  1. Specifics for the reporting of the inputs, collaborations, outputs and outcomes have not been finalized. This can be accomplished currently through the CRIS system for the Experiment Stations. Most Cooperative Extension offices now provide specific accountability for their 3-D funds so it is assumed that some system could be developed either through EASE or some other mechanism.
  2. Since the four draft MAPs were chosen as examples, what will be the procedure(s) for identifying future MAPs? What will be their relationship to BOA and BOHS priorities? How will selection of MAPs be coordinated with the current decision making structure of R and E committees/groups?
  3. The MAPS concept has been developed for USDA formula funding primarily. Is there any reason not to use this program for reporting on funding from sources beyond USDA, particularly for addressing emerging issues?

Next Steps

Regional chairs for Extension and Research are asked to work with their regional associations to discuss, modify as appropriate and eventually adopt the MAPs concept. Ron Brown (Extension) and Tom Helms (Research) are serving as staff to the MAPs Task Force and are available, as are other members of the group, to assist during this process. (Members of the group, in addition to Helms and Brown, are Colin Kaltenbach, Oscar Butler, Mary Gray, Eric Young, Keith Smith, Randy Woodson, George Cooper, and Gary Cunningham). The Task Force appreciates any assistance in developing, refining and implementing this important process.


Multiple Activity Program (MAP) Proposal
Activity Number: To be assigned
Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________
Title: Safe and Nutritious Food Supply

Statement of Issue and Justification: Americans have the safest, most abundant food supply in the world, thanks to the wonders of science, hard work of farmers, supportive public policies and education, and the vigilance of the nation’s food processing industry. However a growing world population, coupled with competitive world markets and the blistering pace of technological advances, all motivate America’s agricultural and food processing systems to increase their effectiveness in securing a dependable food supply.

Developing food to sustain health throughout the world will require synergy between agricultural, medical, behavioral and nutritional sciences. Scientific breakthroughs in such fields as genomics, cell biology, nutrition, and human behavior have produced dramatic changes in our understanding of the influence of food on individual and public health. Food and agricultural research has taken us from the most basic treatment of nutritional deficiencies to the identification of diseases that are transmitted by food. In the process, researchers have been able to discover ways food can contribute to the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases. The results of this research have contributed not only to the saving of lives, but also to major economic returns in the form of reduced health care costs and improved public health.

Simultaneously, consumers have expressed strong market choices with cultural, social class, and political preferences for agricultural products. Increasingly, the agricultural and food processing systems are partnering directly with consumers rather than with commodity organizations for the identification of acceptable market products. Demands for natural foods, organics and antigenomics are changing the market place and creating anxieties about the safety and dependability of our current food systems. In addition, recent threats to our national security have raised fears and concerns about agrosecurity and the ability of our systems to maintain a safe food supply. New developments will need to be communicated to an increasingly critical and anxious public characterized by inadequate understanding of agricultural science. Retaining public confidence and investments in the work of our research and educational system will require strategic communication. The increasing sophistication of science must be coupled with an increasing sophistication in targeting audiences with relevant messages about our food supply. Our challenge to communicate effectively regarding food choices is illustrated by current health data. Heart disease is still the number one cause of death in the United States and while some major risk factors are not modifiable most risk factors can be changed or treated through dietary and lifestyle modifications. These risk factors include high blood cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, physical inactivity, smoking, obesity/overweight, diabetes, and stress. Research on cancer suggests that one-third of the 500,000 cancer deaths that occur in the United States every year is due to dietary factors. Diabetes currently affects approximately 16 million people in the United States and over 5 million of these people are unaware that they have the disease. As Hispanics increase in proportion of the United States population, dietary related disease prevention becomes more critical. Hispanics have twice the prevalence rate of type-2 diabetes than non-Hispanic whites and the debilitating effects of diabetes can be prevented with early detection, improved medical care, and diabetes dietary self-management. Currently, 4 to 6 million women age 50 years and over are affected by osteoporosis and another 13 to 17 million have osteopenia. These disabilities are largely preventable through a healthy lifestyle that includes balanced diet, weight bearing exercise, and no smoking. Currently, 1 in 3 American adults are overweight and fat accounts for more than 33 percent of the calories in the American diet. In the decade since 1989, the amount of soft drinks consumed by men and women have surpassed their intake of milk. About 57 percent of Americans eat away from home on any given day and these meals are accounting for an ever-increasing total of calorie and fat intake. As the percentage of elderly population increases to 80 million by the year 2050, nutrition will play an increasingly important role in maintaining the health of the population. Critical tools for nutrition education include the fourth edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Food Guide Pyramid, and the Nutrition Facts Label. Information in these tools is still not understood by the majority of Americans and a concerted effort at strategic education can assist the consumer in making wiser dietary choices, therefore reducing the cost of health care, a loss of worker productivity, and an increase in life quality.

It is estimated that the yearly cost in lost worker productivity due to food borne illnesses is between 20 and 40 billion dollars in the United States. According to the Healthy People 2010 Initiative, emerging new pathogens, improper food preparation, storage, and distribution practices, insufficient training of retail employees, an increasingly global food supply and an increase in the number of people at risk because of aging and compromised capacity to fight disease, will all play an important role in the increase in food borne illness in the future. With an increase in number of meals eaten away from home, the responsibility for maintaining safe food is increasingly falling on minimal wage workers employed in the food processing and retail industry.

Objectives:

  1. Reduce food borne illnesses
    Strategies:

    1. Identify and fully characterize known and unknown food borne pathogens. Develop methods to detect and prevent the formation of fungal and other toxins in foods.
    2. Gather data through improved epidemiological surveillance and develop a national database with detailed information about pathogen and toxin levels in a variety of foods at each step of the food production, processing, distribution, and preparation systems.
    3. Create comprehensive pathogen models and complete risk assessments. Estimate the variation in food borne illness accounted for by different processes and integrate probability models with dynamic models.
    4. Evaluate existing food production practices to identify high-risk activities and the effectiveness of current controls.
    5. Develop new control technologies and strategies including lethal processes to kill pathogens on foods not suitable for heat treatment.
    6. Identify food safety practices which control the most serious food borne risks and are most acceptable to food process workers and to the consuming public.
    7. Create effective education on food safety risks for food handlers, preparers, and consumers.
  2. Enhance human health through diet
    Strategies:

    1. Identify barriers to healthy dietary adoption and develop effective ways to encourage healthier dietary choices.
    2. Develop biomarkers to identify presence of substances in various foods; quantify intake, absorption and effect of such substances.
    3. Investigate positive and negative biological effects on the human body of various bioactive food components.
    4. Investigate health effects of compounds recently known to effect human health including probiotics and phytochemicals.
    5. Identify the intake levels at which compounds create risk and establish safe upper bounds for consumption.
    6. Identify food substances that regulate the production levels of genes affecting overall health or chronic disease and design delivery systems to transmit the substance(s) to the appropriate location.
    7. Create healthier foods by using traditional and genomic methods to modify food components.
    8. Increase understanding of the social, psychological, cultural meanings of food, and identify realistic strategies for education to high-risk targeted audiences.
    9. Develop multi-media, modular educational materials that will focus on reduction of food-borne illnesses and enhancement of human health through diet.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts:

  1. Development of new processing technologies and equipment that preserve the quality and safety of foods.
  2. Improved new food products that enhance human health and reduce food borne illness.
  3. Increased sophistication and use of analytical methods of food composition and a data bank of information for use by researchers in creating food products.
  4. New understanding of the relationship between food intake and physical and mental status of individuals throughout the life span.
  5. Improved theoretical basis for understanding behavior related to dietary changes.
  6. Greater understanding of the level and pathways for toxic residues in food products.
  7. New understanding of pathogenic food borne microorganisms and parasites in raw, minimally or inadequately processed and preserved foods.

Expected Impacts:

  1. A reduction in cost of food borne illness.
  2. Evidence of healthier dietary choices in the population.
  3. A reduction in the incidence and severity of chronic disease influenced by diet.

Internal and External Linkages:

Education Plan: Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan. This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected in research objectives and the results are available to intended users in rapid and effective models. Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate. Examples of other partners include certified crop consultants, pesticide applicators, state and federal service and regulatory agencies, health advocates, and environmental interest groups.

Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project. Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability. Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

Budget: Budget to be determined as funding is appropriated by Congress in response to current initiatives.


Multiple Activity Program (MAP) Proposal
Activity Number: To be assigned
Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________
Title: Educated Workforce

Statement of Issue and Justification: Today, the entire American workforce including the agricultural system is and will continue to be part of an economic revolution. Labor market analysts estimate that each year in America one-third of our job roles are in transition, one-third of our technical skills become obsolete, and one-third of workers leave their jobs. There are dramatic changes in the number of years workers remain in one position or industry and in the relationship American workers have with their places of employment.

Almost 20 percent of the workforce in this country is involved in the production, processing and distribution of food and fiber. The preparation of this workforce is not keeping pace with an industry that is approaching assets totaling a trillion dollars. To address the challenge, the entire agricultural educational system will need to be transformed to assure that workers can acquire skills needed to meet societal needs, as well as achieve personal well- being. The land grant system stands as a critical leader in meeting the needs for a knowledgeable and skilled workforce and for reaching out to the population at large through workforce preparation programs. However, the investment needed to insure this transformation and development is woefully inadequate.

Objectives:

  1. Produce highly skilled knowledgeable graduates in the food and agricultural system, and related areas.
    Strategies:

    1. Enhance the technology based learning requirements in all curricula at the post-secondary level.
    2. Increase the globalization of post secondary education curricula in the food and agricultural sciences and related areas.
    3. Increase the cross-discipline integrative nature of curriculum and emphasize a problem centered, applied research focus at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
    4. Increase the requirements for skill development in labor management and economics in all areas of Food and Agricultural Science curriculum at the post- secondary level.
    5. Increase the skill requirements in post secondary education for understanding local, state, and federal policy development and the consumer role in the agricultural system.
    6. Increase the Food and Agricultural Science graduates’ understanding of community and political processes as related to the social and economic implication of the agriculture industry.
  2. Increase the effectiveness of off campus and distance education engagement from the land grant system.
    Strategies:

    1. Increase the requirements for service learning, internships, and applied research experiences for agricultural students.
    2. Create an asynchronous method for the delivery of learning modules to targeted audiences away from the campuses.
    3. Create new partnerships between campus-based faculty, community leaders, Extension professionals, and industry leaders for co-learning integrated teams on critical issues.
    4. Create new memorandum of agreements with employers and establish educational delivery models sensitive to the skill development demands of an increasingly sophisticated and mobile workforce.
    5. Develop strategic plans in partnership with leaders of minority and under served communities to increase their access to education and create appropriate models of information delivery, to recruit members of these communities, and enhance the capacity of the communities to continue this educational process.
    6. Create active educational teams including scientists appointed to state agricultural Experiment Stations, enhance the number of these scientists who are active members of graduate research committees and who supervise and direct new applied research endeavors.
    7. Increase the engagement of the land grant university with small business development centers, job training centers, and workforce centers. Identify shared interests for the delivery of appropriate education and applied research.
    8. Develop multi-media, modular educational materials that focus on workforce preparation.

Internal and External Linkages:

Education Plan: Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan. This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected in research objectives and the results are available to intended users in a prompt and professional manner. Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate. Examples of other partners include business and industry, state and federal service and regulatory agencies, labor advocates, economic development organizations and local government representatives.

In order to cope realistically with the workforce challenge, a comprehensive collaboration must be developed between the agricultural industry, the land grant university, other educational systems and a number of critical targeted audiences. This coalition can be a powerful structure for guiding applied research endeavors and new models of education in both formal and informal environments.

Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project. Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability. Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

Budget: Budget to be determined as funding is appropriated by Congress in response to current initiatives.


Multiple Activity Program (MAP) Proposal
Activity Number: To be assigned
Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________
Title: Environmental Balance

Statement of Issue and Justification: In addition to feeding today’s population, the agricultural production system must protect the future by assuring a healthy and productive biophysical environment. This requires the balancing of production needs with stewardship responsibilities and mandates that agricultural practices meet high standards for sustainability. In addition to being profitable, contemporary agriculture production practices must avoid or mitigate the impacts of those inputs which cause environmental damage, practices that extract valuable elements, or applications that leave residues that are harmful or diminish future productivity or present public health risks. Environmental protection, public health, and natural resource protection as well as providing cheap, abundant and safe food are at the center of the need to design agricultural production systems that are sustainable.

Increasingly, the American public is critical of environmental impacts attributed to agriculture. In addition, many citizens question the application of new technologies that limit their consumer choice and create anxiety either due to a lack of understanding of the science involved or the conflicts with their basic social values. It is increasingly important that food and agriculture systems create models for joint planning and education with the wider community including health, labor and environmental interests. As the population becomes more urbanized and increasing numbers of congressional and legislative delegations represent non-rural interests, policies which impact agriculture will be determined by a public with a limited understanding of food production systems. Land grant universities find their engagement in the public changing from a strict technology transfer role to one of negotiated agreements with a public that is increasingly critical and demanding. A number of environmental regulations need negotiation and flexibility in order to protect the economic sustainability of our agriculture systems.

Objectives:

  1. Create a Food and Agriculture system that is marked by social, economic, and environmental sustainability.
    Strategies:

    1. Develop and apply new and emerging technologies ranging from molecular biology to global positioning systems to support enhanced decision making and precision agriculture applications by farmers, regional planners, and regulatory officials.
    2. Increase the flexibility available to agriculture producers, regional planners, and regulatory officials by providing a variety of tools to encourage environmental stewardship and economic prosperity. These will include both performance-based and practice based incentives with interagency collaboration and implementation.
    3. Increase research to identify public health and environmental risks from current production practices.
    4. Increase engagement with community members in dialogues about preferred environmental and economic futures and engage in local policy development to support these goals.
    5. Develop multi-media modular educational materials that will focus on food and agricultural practices, which ensure environmental balance.

Outcomes:

  1. Improved technologies including genetically improved cultivars in breeds and improved production methods with a balance between current and future needs for profitability.
  2. Safer, healthier, and cleaner biophysical spaces for food production systems and community development.
  3. Improved technologies to mitigate the effects of agricultural practices which have created deleterious environmental impacts.
  4. The adoption of safer and sustainable agricultural practices by producers.

Internal and External Linkages:

Education Plan: Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan. This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected in research objectives and the results are available to intended users in a prompt and professional manner and are integrated into educational programs for producers, chemical applicators, and other partners. Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate. Examples of other partners include certified crop consultants, pesticide applicators, state and federal environmental regulatory agencies, health advocates, and environmental interest groups.

In order to cope realistically with the challenge, a comprehensive collaboration must be developed between the agricultural industry, the land grant university, other educational systems and members of critical targeted audiences. This coalition can be a powerful structure for guiding applied research endeavors and new models of education in both formal and informal environments.

Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project. Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability. Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

Budget: Budget to be determined as funding is appropriated by Congress in response to current initiatives.


Multiple Activity Program (MAP) Proposal
Activity Number: To be assigned
Requested Duration: From _____________ to _____________
Title: Community Opportunities

Statement of Issue and Justification: A viable community is characterized by skilled community leadership, sound public policy, economic diversity, responsive community services, active civic involvement, strong schools and medical facilities, and a healthy population of children, youth and adults. Both urban and rural communities face special challenges that will increase in scope and complexity in the next decade. The changing economic structures in the United States and the divestiture of responsibility for local services by the federal government have created challenges to communities. Complex decisions will need to be made at the local level about health care, education, telecommunications, economic development, and delivery of human services. Many decisions demand specialized information and skilled leaders who can engage in appropriate dialogue to insure decisions that are both pro-active and respectful of and responsive to local needs.

Approximately, 25 percent of the American population now resides in rural areas and the specific challenges to place bound citizens are complex. Immigration now accounts for more population growth than does births, contributing to increasing ethnic language and social complexities in the nation’s communities. The digital divide shows some rural communities without access to the technology revolution and other communities experiencing a dramatic change in their economic base. Those rural communities close to major metropolitan areas or to scenic amenities are thriving in new ways; however both rural and inner city communities are vulnerable to the current economic changes. Agriculture, like a number of other major industries, has become consolidated in large corporate structures that often have less loyalty and/or interest in being responsive community partners. In addition, agriculture, technology, and a number of other current industries are experiencing volatility in their fortunes. In this economic pattern marginalized communities in rural areas and the central cities are most often impacted by down turns. In such a climate, it is easy for citizens to feel powerless and community environments to become stagnant and depressed.

The land grant university system has changed the world in agricultural production, food safety, nutrition, and youth development through farsighted federal and state investments that have fueled the U.S. and world economy. Similar investments in the lives of communities can insure prosperous communities with viable economies and a positive social fabric. There is a need to enhance our partnerships with communities and provide information in support of policy and practice changes that are needed as they envision their futures.

Objectives:

  1. Enhance the vitality of communities.
    Strategies:

    1. Increase the availability of new economic development models appropriate for a variety of communities.
    2. Enhance the quality of leadership and the civic engagement of community members through a variety of partnerships with communities to develop skills and support community dialogue for local planning.
    3. Bring researchers from the land grant campuses to partner with communities in identifying needed areas of research and new models for the translation of existing research findings to facilitate local decision processes.
    4. Increase the effectiveness of all human service models at the community level in health, education, and family relationships through partnering with community planning groups and interagency councils to increase the effectiveness of current resources and identify new efficiencies of service delivery.
  2. Strengthen Under-Served Communities:
    Strategies:

    1. Create partnerships between the land grant institutions and under-served communities in order to identify local and regional strengths, cultivate the business community in mutual planning and support, and enhance capacity building activities appropriate to each community’s culture and history.
    2. Assist communities in completing their own environmental scan of strengths and capacity in order to identify goals and request assistance in building the capacity of the community to increase its positive energy toward a new future.
    3. Develop multi-media, modular educational materials that will focus on community enhancement.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts:

  1. The identification or development of a variety of tools available to communities for self-study and reflection to assess the quality of their social institutions economic base, support for workers and their families, civic engagement, and leadership strength.
  2. Development and change in local and state policies driven by identified requests and data from community needs assessments.
  3. Enhanced effectiveness of public-private partnerships and informal/formal models to increase all capital in communities.
  4. Viable economic bases, maintenance of population and positive social indicators in targeted communities including school completion, job retention, mental and physical health, family stability, community participation, and community institutional vitality.

Internal and External Linkages:

Education Plan: Cooperative Extension and the Agriculture Experiment Stations are full partners in this plan. This integration of activities will ensure that researchable questions of concern to the public are reflected into research objectives and the results are available to intended users in a prompt and professional manner. Additional partners will be recruited from the private sector and from state and federal agencies as appropriate. Examples of other partners include state and federal regulatory agencies, local government officials, health advocates, and environmental interest groups.

In order to cope realistically with the challenge, a comprehensive collaboration must be developed between the agricultural industry, the land grant university, other educational systems and member of critical targeted audiences. This coalition can be a powerful structure for guiding applied research endeavors and new models of education in both formal and informal environments.

Governance: A technical committee with an elected chair, secretary, and chair elect will govern the project. Research and Extension administrative advisors and a USDA/CSREES appointed representative will advise the technical committee on management matters and assist the technical committee on complying with technical reporting requirements and outcome accountability. Membership on the technical committee will be open to all qualified scientists and Extension specialists and agents willing to address one or more of this project’s stated objectives.

Budget: Budget to be determined as Congress appropriates funding in response to current initiatives.

Action Requested: Approval of concept.

In-meeting information/discussion: A Powerpoint presentation presented during the meeting is available.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Dr. Scifres/Young, SAAESD endorsed the MAPs concept.


Agenda Item 11.
IPM Program Facilitator

Presenter: Fred Knapp and Norm Nesheim

Background: Dr. Norm Nesheim, Director, Southern Region Pest Management Center will give an update on Pest Management Center activities and Center plans to provide support along with CSREES for an IPM facilitator for the Southern Region.

If adopted, Fred Knapp proposes that he continue as Interim Grants Manager for this year in order to make a smooth transition to the center since the RFP for grant proposals are due to go out in May. This RFP must contain the address of the Grants Manager and the due date for proposals.

Action Requested: Approve a Southern Region IPM facilitator position.

In-meeting information/discussion: Highlights of these discussions included:

  • The NE and NC Regions have facilitiators who work with both the regional Centers and with the regional IPM grants programs.
  • CSREES has offered $50,000 to support a facilitator for a two-year trial period to:
    • assist with communication of the RFP,
    • assist panel manager with reviews of proposals,
    • assist with filing and publication of grant reports,
    • participate in and assist with SERA-IEG-3 meeting, and
    • attend professional meetings and promote/communicate IPM.
  • The facilitator will assist the Pest Management Center with similar activities and will also publish newsletters/ brochures and will work with advisory committees.
  • The position would be reevaluated when the Center is renewed at the end of two years.
  • A Southern Region Pest Management Center report was distributed and is available on request from the Executive Director’s office.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Dr. Jones/Cherry, SAAESD endorsed the proposal to hire a Southern Region IPM facilitator from CSREES funds to assist both the Pest Management Center and the IPM Grants Program Manager, at no cost to Southern Directors. The facilitator should be located at one of the Southern Region institutions.


Agenda Item 12.
IPM Grants Program

Presenter: Fred Knapp

Background: The Southern Region IPM (SRIPM) committee proposes to eliminate pre-proposals and go with letters of intent to submit SRIPM proposals with sufficient information to identify the discipline needed for reviewing project proposals. This will give more lead time to have a review committee identified in order to speed up the review process. This would also eliminate the need for a review team for pre-proposals. It is not anticipated that more full proposals will be submitted due to the time it takes to prepare a good proposal. In the past, a large number of pre-proposals have been poorly prepared.

Action Requested: Approval to eliminate SRIPM pre-proposals and go with letters of intent to submit a proposal.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Knapp/Cherry, SAAESD approved elimination of SR-IPM pre-proposals to be replaced with letters of intent.


REVIEW PROCESS
Regional Integrated Pest Management Grants Program
Fiscal Year 2002
A core request for proposals (RFP) for the FY 2001 Regional IPM Grants Program (RIPM) was developed by CSREES in collaboration with the four regional IPM research and extension committees (North Central, Northeastern, Southern, Western). The committees are comprised of research and extension representatives from each state, administrative advisors representing the experiment stations and extension services in the region, and the region’s grants manager. The core RFP was then modified to reflect for each region to reflect program priorities consistent with the intent of Congress and appropriate to the level of funding available were developed for each region. RIPM makes available research (P.L. 89-106) and extension (S.L. 3(d)) funding for single or combined activity projects.

Each of the four regional RFPs were distributed to all eligible land-grant institutions within each region. Research and extension staff at any state experiment station, state extension service, or land-grant university in the United States are eligible to receive funds. Each RFP describes the program, indicates who is eligible to receive grants, establishes priority areas for research or extension projects, lists criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals, and establishes proposal format, submission deadlines, and other details about the process.

Project proposals were evaluated with a competitive peer review process and ranked based on conformance to goals and objectives of the program, scientific and educational merit, and appropriateness of budget. The peer panel process is managed by a regional grants manager, with administrative oversight and assistance by an administrative advisor and the CSREES National Program Leader for IPM. Peer panels were selected to achieve a balance of disciplines, scientific specializations, education and experience, and diversity. Each region selected panel members from qualified candidates in the three other regions. Each proposal was evaluated by one primary and two secondary reviewers before the peer panel convened; ad hoc reviews were used to supplement the reviews of the three designated reviewers when appropriate and useful. At the peer panel meeting, each proposal was reviewed, discussed, and ranked based on mean scores. The primary reviewer for each proposal then prepared a written summary review for each proposal using the information from the secondary reviewers, ad hoc reviewers, and discussion from the peer panel. Each proposal received an average score based on the three reviews and was ranked relative to the other proposals. Based on the peer panel ranking, proposals were recommended for funding in order of rank within the limits of available funding. The proposals recommended for funding were selected based on scientific merit and the importance of the problem to be addressed.

In the Southern Region, a ten (10) member review panel evaluated the 34 proposals that were submitted: 22 research, 6 extension, and 6 joint research and extension. The panel met January 10, 2002, in Lexington, Kentucky, to discuss and rank the proposals. Of the proposals received, eleven (11) were funded: 8 research, 2 extension and 1 joint research and extension. A total of $935,166 was obligated for the 11 projects: $654,722 for research activities, $68,500 for extension activities, $199,070 for joint research and extension activities and $12,874 for administration.

Southern Region
Integrated Pest Management Grants Program
Projects Funded 2002
Land Grant University System and
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Proposal No. Ranking Score Title State(s) Investigators Amount Funded
2002 Extension Proposals
E-05 86.0 A Systems Approach to Provide Ornamental Integrated Pest Management Training Using Conventional & Electronic Delivery Methods OK Bolin, Schnelle $25,000
E-03 73.0 Collaborating with the Public Library System to Educate the General Public about the Merits of IPM GA Guillebeau $43,500
TOTAL $68,500
2002 Joint Research/Extension Proposals
JRE-07 85.0 IPM of the Mexican Rice Borer in Sugarcane and Rice (89-106 $117,460 & S-L $81,610) LA-TX Reagan, Way $199,070
TOTAL $199,070
2002 Research Proposals
R-16 93.0 Identification and Mitigation of Overwintering Sources of Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus Infecting Vegetable Crops (Proposal Budget $156,682 less budget cut by Panel of 26,682 = $130,000) NC Kennedy, Walgenback, Moyer, Monks $130,000
R-02 90.3 Integration of Weed and Insect Management Practices for Conventional and Herbicide-Resistant Rice LA Williams, Stout, Webster $44,000
R-24 88.0 Gulf Coast Tick Management Tactics for Pastured Cattle TX-OK Teel, Longnecker, Stuth, Wright $71,511
R-22 86.0 Development of an Integrated Pest Management Program to Control Snails in Commercial Catfish Ponds MS Pote, Terhune, Wise $74,000
R-04 84.7 Integrated Management of Bacterial Diseases of Tomato (Proposal Budget $142,871 less budget cut by Panel of 22,871 = $120,000) FL-OH Jones, Momol, Pradhanang, Olson, Miller, Scott $120,000
R-01 84.7 Management of Bacterial Fruit Blotch Disease of Watermelon by Biological Control of Seed Infection (Proposal Budget $113,180 less budget cut by Panel of 13,180 = $100,000) GA-FL Walcott, Langston, Hopkins, Gitaitis, Delaplane $100,000
R-18 84.3 Development of Monitoring Tools for the Rice Water Weevil LA-AR-TX Stout, Bernhardt, Way, Ring $42,000
R-20 83.0 NIRS Fecal Analysis: IPM Tool for Tick Management on Range Cattle TX-OK Stuth, Teel, Welsh, Carstens, Wright $73,211
TOTAL $654,722
Administration and Evaluation of the Southern Region IPM Program KY Knapp $12,874
Extension $ 1,500
Research $11,374
Total Funds Committed:
Knapp
Extension
Joint
Research
TOTAL
$ 12,874
$ 68,500
$199,070
$654,722
$935,166

Agenda Item 13.
NRSP-4 (IR-4): A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses

Presenter: Neal Thompson

Background: In 2001, IR-4 submitted 496 data packages to EPA that supported 511 new minor food use clearances. The Food use component of the IR-4 Program continues to have a high productivity which, according to EPA, supports more than 40 percent of all EPA pesticide registrations. For ornamental crops in 2001, IR-4 obtained 289 ornamental clearances for crop protection chemicals. The ornamental industry accounts for over 25 percent or $12 billion of the total minor crop value in the United States. EPA granted 20 IR-4 supported biopesticide food use clearances in 2001. IR-4 has trials supporting Methyl Bromide alternatives. The IR-4/EPA Working Group meets quarterly and establishes clearances projections. California DPR and Canada’s PMRA are assisting in EPA review of appropriate petitions. The Quality Assurance program adds to the reliability of IR-4 data. The increase in the IR-4 Special Grants budget lobbied for by the Commodity Liaison Committee will enable continued high productivity.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 14.
Renewal Request for
National Research Support Project – 3
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)

Presenter: Jerry Arkin

Background: The current NRSP-3 project will terminate September 30, 2002. Results from an Administrative and Technical Review (November, 2001) are available on line as a part of the NRSP-3 website (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/). The Executive Summary from the Review is contained below:


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Administrative and Technical Review
Summary

NADP (NRSP-3) is a world-class scientific venture, providing high-quality wet-deposition data to researchers, educators, decision-makers, students and legislators. As the need for this type of information is becoming more important, not less, NADP (NRSP-3) should be continued and its skills applied to other allied data needs without jeopardizing the core wet-deposition monitoring program. Detailed analysis of achievements can be found in the Program Evaluation section.

Issue 1

Is the NADP satisfactorily achieving the NRSP-3 goal: to provide the scientific research community, resource managers, and policy makers with high quality information on the exposure of managed and natural ecosystems to biologically important chemical deposition and other stressors resulting from changes in the nation’s chemical climate?

Summary:

NADP is providing high-quality precipitation chemistry data to the nation’s scientists and decision-makers. The information compiled and made available by NADP is clearly the best spatial and temporal data set on atmospheric wet deposition in the world. It has expanded its National Trends Network (NTN) and its Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) since the last review. Samples collected and archived by the program are being made available to scientists outside the program to explore new research avenues. NADP is working to revitalize its networks with new monitoring equipment. Its website provides access to data from the three networks within 6 months of collection. The website is easy to use, and is a model for how scientific data can be made available and interpreted.

Recommendations:

  • Form a study group whose members will focus on developing the capacity to address total deposition. This study group may make recommendations to the Technical Committee on how NADP could increase attention to and cooperation with CASTNet, AIRMoN-Dry, and other dry deposition networks, and/or how dry deposition sites could be collocated with NADP wet deposition sites without jeopardizing the core, wet deposition monitoring program.
  • Develop a plan of the “ideal” future network of sites for NTN, AIRMoN, and MDN. Provide guidance on how many sites would be sufficient and at what locations. The plan should use spatial statistical analysis.
  • Issue consolidated reports of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Activities covering all three networks.

Issue 2

Is the NADP organizational structure efficient and effective in carrying out the mission of the NADP (including the Executive Committee, Budget Advisory Committee, Technical Committee, and Program Office)?

Summary:

The NADP organizational structure has succeeded in keeping the operation going for more than two decades in a reasonably efficient manner. Although it appears to be a bit awkward and unwieldy, it has kept a very diverse set of clientele reasonably content. It has also evolved slowly to meet changing needs while remaining primarily under the control of scientists interested in atmospheric deposition. Its decentralized control and diverse sources of funding lead to some unwieldiness and long response times, but have provided the important stability needed to conduct long-term monitoring successfully.

Recommendations:

  • Continue efforts to improve communication throughout the organization especially between the Program Office and the Executive Committee.
  • Review the present structure and functions of subcommittees, and the composition of the executive and budget committees with the goal of simplifying the organization.

Issue 3

Is NADP sufficiently flexible to adapt its long-term monitoring expertise to future environmental problems, such as nutrient loadings, environmental toxics, and atmospheric deposition in urban areas?

Summary:

In the past NADP has demonstrated flexibility in adapting its long-term monitoring expertise to accommodate additional needs. The Technical Committee has been appropriately cautious in accepting new monitoring protocols. It has sought to be sure that new proposals were not only scientifically sound, but could be sustained politically and fiscally over sufficient space and time to provide useful information. NADP has added the AIRMoN network and mercury network since its founding. Additional opportunities for expansion of monitoring exist. NADP is faced with the delicate balancing act of trying to protect and keep running that which it does well, NTN, while exploring and moving into new areas. New proposals are circulating which could expand NADP’s role in monitoring precipitation. NADP should avoid adopting a protective, reactive approach to these additions, and instead actively seek funds for new endeavours as it did in its entrepreneurial days.

Recommendations:

  • Respond flexibly to regional/multi-state and “non-traditional” for deposition data by creating a class of sites whose data is not included in national trends, but collected specifically for these studies.
  • Monitor key emerging environmental issues for opportunities to apply NADP’s management and scientific skills to the solution of these problems.
  • Become more proactive in its approach to adding new monitoring capabilities such as dry deposition or metals.
  • Consider adding a $1.00 “research tax” to the cost of processing each sample at the CAL/HAL, to allow research by the CAL/HAL and Program Office staff on new methods and procedures, and new analytes.

Issue 4

Is the NADP working towards the accomplishment of its vision? Is there a vision for the future?

Summary:

The NADP is a research support program of significant national importance and impact. It has developed a strategic plan with concise statements of its mission, vision, and goals. In addition to maintaining its long-term goals of providing reliable data on atmospheric wet deposition, in the last 5 years it has provided archived samples for pioneering studies of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, and the door is open for similar future studies of nitrogen and sulfur isotopes in precipitation. NADP has adequately identified needs and opportunities for replacement of its aging sample collection hardware.

Recommendations:

  • Produce a white paper on NADP’s future role in environmental research.
  • Track the implications for chemical analysis of cutting-edge high-throughput technologies that are currently revolutionizing biological research.
  • Monitor technology in the areas of publishing, software, and analytical chemistry.


RENEWAL PROPOSAL
2002-2007
The full proposal for a replacement project is available online and is also highlighted below:

Mission. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) provides quality assured data and information on the exposure of managed and natural ecosystems and cultural resources to acidic compounds, nutrients, base cations, and mercury in precipitation. These data support informed decisions on air quality issues related to precipitation chemistry and are used by scientists, policy-makers, educators, and the public. (Peer-review scientists have said of the NADP, “The monitoring program, and the resultant data set that is being constructed, is perhaps the most significant long-term, continuous, and comprehensive sampling and analysis program to be undertaken in the environmental sciences.”

Southern Region Participation. FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, TX, VA (Up from 0.4 SY/PY/TY in GA & VA in 1997 to 1.6 SY/PY/TY in 2002).

Measurement Networks. The NADP operates three precipitation chemistry networks: the National Trends Network (NTN), the Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network (AIRMoN), and the Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). There are 232 NTN stations collecting one-week precipitation samples in 48 states (Rhode Island & Delaware do not have stations). The NTN provides the only long-term nationwide record of wet deposition in the United States. Forty-five NTN stations are located at land grant university facilities, 16 in the Southern Region. Complementing the NTN are the 10-site AIRMoN and the 63-site MDN. Data from daily precipitation samples collected at AIRMoN sites support continued research of atmospheric transport and removal of air pollutants and development of computer simulations of these processes. The MDN offers the only regional measurements of mercury in North American precipitation, and MDN data are used to quantify mercury deposition to water bodies that have fish and wildlife consumption advisories due to this toxic chemical. In 2001, 42 states listed advisories warning people to limit game fish consumption due to high mercury levels. Advisories also were issued for coastal Maine, the Atlantic Coast from the Virginia-North Carolina border to the southern tip of Florida, and the entire U.S. Gulf Coast.

Data. NADP data are freely available via the Internet, which enables on-line retrieval of individual data points, seasonal and annual averages, trend plots, concentration and deposition maps, reports, manuals, and other data and information (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu). In 2001, the NADP Internet site received nearly 43,000 unique visitors, a 7% increase over 2000 usage. Site users logged more than 109,000 sessions, and the site received over one million hits for the first time in its history. Since tracking of Internet site usage began in 1998, usage has increased by 300% to 400%. Most frequently accessed data products are color contour maps of pollutant concentrations and depositions. Site users viewed 88,367 maps in 2001 and retrieved 18,535 data files. User statistics show that researchers primarily use NADP data to study atmospheric deposition and watershed processes, as well as environmental phenomena such as the effects of deposition on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and on cultural resources. Universities account for 35% of NADP Internet site users, followed by federal agencies (21%) and public schools (18%). Research and educational usage have averaged ~60% to 40%, respectively. College students and secondary and elementary school students use the popular on-line brochures, such as Inside Rain and Nitrogen in the Nation’s Rain, as well as using NADP data for research and class assignments. NADP maps also appear in several new textbooks, such as Ecosystem Change and Public Health (Johns Hopkins University Press), Chemistry in Context (American Chemical Society), andMeteorology (McGraw-Hill). In January 2001, the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) selected the NADP site for Current Web Contents, an on-line listing of scholarly, research-oriented web sites. Navigation and design, accuracy and currency of content, scope and quality of writing are among the criteria ISI applies in selecting sites.

Usefulness of Findings (recent examples).

  • The Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI), a partnership of public and private sector scientists, policy-makers, and interested citizens is using NTN data to conduct an assessment of the acidic deposition effects on streams, soils, and forests in the Southern Appalachian Mountains of nine southeastern states.
  • In its report, Clean Coastal Waters, Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, a National Academy of Sciences Committee used NADP data to evaluate the role of atmospheric nitrogen deposition as a cause of excess nutrient levels in estuarine systems. Estimates range from 10% to 40% of the total nitrogen input to estuaries comes from atmospheric deposition. In its report, the Committee cited NADP data as crucial to the development of airshed and watershed models.
  • Scientists and policy-makers are using NADP data to address contemporary environmental issues. One issue is the recurrent zone of hypoxic waters that forms in the Gulf of Mexico during June to August. Sediments in the Mississippi River delta suggest that hypoxia is associated with increased nutrient fluxes to the Gulf. In May 1999, the federal Committee on Environment and Natural Resources released its scientific assessment of the causes and consequences of this zone and strategies for reducing nutrients in the Mississippi River. The Committee made extensive use of NTN data in preparing its estimate of atmospheric nitrogen inputs to the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River basin.
  • Research groups measuring the isotopic composition of water have found an important new application for NTN samples. Scientists are measuring the 18O and 2H abundance in NTN precipitation samples. These measurements are being used to evaluate the sources of water in plant tissue, investigate watershed processes, and study climate change.
  • NADP scientists and other scientists using NADP data typically publish over 100 journal articles and reports every year.

NRSP Budget and Leveraging.
Direct support of NADP is $2.5M (FY01 total: $2,460,896). NRSP-3 off-the-top support is $112,762, or 4.6% of the total budget. National Research Support Project – 3 provides the framework and authority that leverages cooperation and support from

  • eight federal partners, through a cooperative agreement with USDA-CSREES, and
  • SAES, universities, government (state, local, tribal, and federal) agencies, and non-governmental organizations, through 80+ individual memorandum-of-agreements.

NADP has more than 100 partners and NRSP-3 makes possible this level of cooperation in support of research of a problem of national and international scope. NRSP – 3 makes it possible for agencies all over the country to use the data for policy assessments, scientists to use the data for environmental effects research, and university and secondary school students to use the data to learn about contemporary environmental problems.

MRF FUNDING
1Proposed FY2003
1Proposed FY2004
1Proposed FY2005
1Proposed FY2006
1Proposed FY2007
FTE – Dollars
FTE – Dollars
FTE – Dollars
FTE – Dollars
FTE – Dollars
SALARIES 1.65 – $110,167 1.65 – $113,472 1.65 – $116,876 1.65 – $120,382 1.65 – $123,994
FRINGE BENEFITS 5,976 6,155 6,340 6,530 6,726
WAGES
TRAVEL
SUPPLIES
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT/CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
OTHER DIRECT
COSTS
TOTAL 1.65 – $116,143 1.65 – $119,627 1.65 – $123,216 1.65 – $126,913 1.65 – $130,720
1 Requested % salary increase each year: 3%.

Action Requested: Approval of NRSP-3 for 2002-2007.

In-meeting information/discussion: There was considerable discussion related to the fact that the only significant critical commentary from the CSREES review was to consider expanding the program to collect dry deposition samples. Due to the limited experience with the technology and the associated expense of collecting dry deposition samples, it is premature to adopt this technology until it is proven. Furthermore, the Southern Directors took the position that to impose new requirements at this stage of the renewal process would be unfair to the NRSP-3 group.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Arkin/Coston, SAAESD approved renewal of NRSP-3 as presented.


Agenda Item 15.
Update and Instruction on the
National Information Management Support System (NIMSS)

Presenter: Anna Marie Rasberry

Background: A brief update will be provided on the status of the Southern Region’s use of NIMSS, along with basic instruction on its use. To date, chief operating officers and administrative advisors of existing or pending MRF projects have been instructed to begin using NIMSS for actions associated with these activities. All Southern Directors have been registered in NIMSS and login IDs and passwords were provided to COOs and AAs of MRF projects. Instructions were posted on the SAAESD webpage. Also on the SAAESD webpage, is a link to the NIMSS login screen (http://www.lgu.umd.edu/login.cfm) and a link to the Users Manual (http://www.lgu.umd.edu/manual/intro.html).

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 16.
Multistate Research Committee

Presenter: Nancy Cox

Background: Since May, 2001, 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-1000: Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture (S-275)- Frank Gilstrap, AA
  • S-1001: Development of Plant Pathogens as Bioherbicides for Weed Control (S-268)- Greg Weidemann, AA
  • S-1002: New Technologies for the Utilization of Textile Materials (S-272)- William H. Brown, AA
  • S-1003: Variety and Quality Evaluation of Virginia-type Peanuts – Gerald Jubb, AA
  • S-1004: Development and Evaluation of TMDL Planning and Assessment Tools and Processes (S-273)- Roland Mote, AA
  • S-1005: Sources, Dispersal and Management of Stable Flies on Grazing Beef and Dairy Cattle (S-274)- Fred Knapp, AA
  • S-1006: Insect and Manure Management in Poultry Systems: Elements Relative to Food Safety and Nuisance Issues (S-274)- Fred Knapp, AA

Extension requests reviewed and approved by MRC:

  • S-271: Solid-Phase Extraction Techniques for Pesticides in Water Samples – approved to 9/02
  • S-277: Breeding to Optimize Maternal Performance and Reproduction of Beef Cows in the Southern Region – approved to 9/03

Development Committees approved and pending submission of projects:

  • DC 00-03: Biotechnology and Bioconversion Engineering and Processes – Jim Fischer, AA
  • DC 01-01: Crop Resistance for Management of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Sustainable Agriculture (S-282) – Fred Knapp, AA
  • DC 01-02: Dynamic Soybean Pest Management for Evolving Agricultural Technologies and Cropping Systems (S-281) – David Boethel, AA
  • DC 01-03: Water Quality Methodology for Crop Protection Chemicals (S-271) – Neal Thompson, AA
  • DC 01-04: Genetic Selection and Crossbreeding to Enhance Reproduction and Survival of Dairy Cattle (S-284) – Nancy Cox, AA

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: The MRC will focus on impact statements and looking at how well an activity is coordinating multistate activities. Further, the MRC sees its role on review of NRSPs as being the same as for review of MRF activities, being engaged in the process. It was felt that the review process should inform the renewal process.


Agenda Item 17.
SERA Study Committee

Presenter: Gerald Jubb

Background: SERAs are a valuable activity for the Southern Region. During the Oklahoma City meeting last August, Skip Jubb and David Foster presented an overview of the h istory of SERAs and highlighted several good examples of very interactive, successful groups of scientists and specialists working together. Skip and David were asked to co-chair a committee to suggest possible modification of guidelines and principles for establishment or renewal of SERAs. Subsequently, committee members appointed were: Roland Mote and Steve Leath from SAAESD, and Bobby Tyson and Dave Barrett from ASRED. Further, Skip Jubb discussed these SERA issues with AC-12 members at their annual meeting in Puerto Rico in February. Their thoughts are incorporated below.

The SERA Committee has reacted to six basic questions regarding SERA operations. The Committee now wishes to continue that dialogue to further evaluate the need for modifying SERA guidelines.

  1. There are currently no defined criteria for approval of new or modified SERAs. Should there be?A wide range of multistate activities takes place as SERAs. Any defining criteria we put into place should be of a general nature so as not to stifle enthusiasm among people for working together on topics of regional interest. Criteria could include the need for the SERA, its relevancy, are the objectives achievable, the SERAs’ importance to state and region, the balance of research and extension activities, and are there appropriate faculty involved to assure success?

    The lack of bureaucracy in SERAs is good, and the flexibility is great; so keep it simple. (This was the strong suggestion of the AC-12 group)

  2. Would more formalization of these activities enhance identified support dollars for travel to the meetings?No, unless southern directors do accounting differently. It won’t make a difference in most states. The policy in each state may be such that this could be important. Neither research nor extension currently gives monetary support for travel to SERA meetings.
  3. Could SERAs be used in some way to document a diverse portfolio of multistate activities?Yes, by making information about SERAs as pubic as possible. Minutes of meetings and formal membership listings could be publicized.
  4. SERAs need to show value. Should SERAs be required to write annual impact reports?Firstly, the expected impact should be explained first in the request to start a SERA activity. Th e co-administrative advisors could be the authors of the impact report (as suggested by AC-12). This should not be a burden on the faculty members. Put the impact statement into the portfolio listing on the web site.
  5. Should there be a more formal review mechanism?Currently, when time allows, Experiment Station directors solicit reviews from their disciplinary Advisory Committees. The full body of directors then votes on acceptance of the proposed activity.

    The value of a starting or continuing a SERA must be demonstrable. Periodic self-evaluation reports and impact analyses seem reasonable, but a rigorous review process is not warranted. Yet, some measure of quality control is prudent. Perhaps in cases where either of the Executive Directors or research or extension Directors believe that an activity will not generate benefits to both research and extension then a review could be requested. This should be accomplished quickly via e-mail and not be an elaborate process.

  6. At least one of the two co-advisors should be a member of SAAESD or ASRED. Should the other co-advisor be a department head?This approach is probably correct. Good communications is always needed between the department heads and the director associations. SERA-IEG-23 (Cotton Insects) and SERA-IEG-27 (Nursery Crop and Landscape) each have two department heads as co-administrative advisors; perhaps that should change.

Action Requested: For information and discussion. Recommendations to follow.

In-meeting information/discussion: Three criteria were identified as important for SERAs: 1) relevancy, 2) impact of the region, and 3) quality of science/scientists. It was further stressed that co-administrative advisors should generate impact statements, further demonstrating the value of the activity.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Jubb/Jones, SAAESD approved the recommendation that at least one of the two SERA administrative advisors should be from AES or CES, with the other being a department head if desired. Implementation of this decision should occur when an activity requests renewal.


Agenda Item 18.
Update: Association of Southern Region Extension Directors (ASRED)

Presenter: Christine Waddill

Background:

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Items highlighted were:

  • Dr. Ron Brown was hired as Executive Director for ASRED.
  • ASRED priorities include:
    • Curriculum development for regional sharing
    • Development of an e-Extension system
  • Extension has developed a “Vision for the 21st Century” (document available on the NASULGC website).
  • NASULGC’s Extension liaison, Myron Johnsrud, retired; Richard Wootton will replace him effective June 1.

Agenda Item 19.
Update: Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

Presenter: Charles Onstad

Background:

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Items highlighted were:

  • Dr. Floyd Horn is currently on detail to the Executive Office of the President,Office of Homeland Security.
  • Dr. Ed Knipling is serving as Acting Administrator.
  • Dr. Mike Ruff is working with ARS’ Homeland Security.
  • Security measures are being put into place for all federal facilities, including ARS laboratories.
  • The ARS budget has seen a $94 million increase offset by a potential $90 million loss. It is expected that an overall $10 million decrease will be in place for FY03.
  • A new decision will have far-reaching effects – No scientists, graduate students, medical personnel, etc. will be sponsored by USDA for work visas in foreign ARS labs, etc. This will be especially critical in Mexico and Canada.

Agenda Item 20.
Update: Southern Rural Development Center

Presenter: William H. Brown

Background: The Southern Rural Development Center’s Annual Report provides an indepth view of Center activities for 2000-2001.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: The following items were highlighted:

  • The SRDC Board of Directors includes AES representatives William H. Brown, Vance Watson, and Roland Mote.
  • The SRDC has an active publishing record.
  • Bo Beaulieu has brought to the Center a higher level of grant activity.
  • The Board has approved 1)a request for Dr. Beaulieu to move back to Gainesville, maintaining his position in the Center from there; and 2) hiring an Associate Director to be housed in the Center, which will remain at Mississippi State University.

Agenda Item 21.
Update: CSREES

Presenter: Gary Cunningham

Background:

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: The following items were highlighted:

  • Dr. George Cooper remains as the SAAESD liaison.
  • Reorganization of CSREES brought Office of Extramural Programs (OEP) with Dr. Louise Ebaugh closer to the top of the organization and established an Information Systems and Technology Management area led by Dr. Sally Rockey.
  • Dr. Rodney Brown was named Deputy Under Secretary for REE.
  • FY03 budget will attempt to double NRI and funding for competitive programs.

Agenda Item 22.
Update: Southern Region Data Support Project

Presenter: Jay Ritchie

Background: This presentation will provide an overview of the Southern Region Data Support System in its fifth year. The year’s activities will be reviewed along with prospective activities for the future. The presentation will also include an examination of thirty years of Soybean production and research investment for the years 1970 – 2000.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 23.
“Excellence in Leadership” Award

Presenter: Charles Scifres

Background: During the August, 2000 SAAESD meeting, Directors approved the concept to establish a Leadership Award. The following draft document will be presented for final approval.


DRAFT
STANDARDS
Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Award
for
Excellence in Leadership
bestowed by the
Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (SAAESD)
Purpose. To recognize those who have served the Southern Experiment Stations, SAAESD, and the national Land-Grant System with exemplary distinction. Through this person’s leadership he/she shall have personified the highest level of excellence by enhancing the cause and performance of the SAAESD in achieving its mission, the vision for the Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Land-Grant ideal.

Eligibility. “Directors,” former or current, who have provided service in a Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) directorate as assistant director, associate director, director, or as chief operating officers with equivalent but variant titles (e.g. vice chancellor, associate vice chancellor, associate vice president, dean for research) recognized by the SAAESD and/or as a former or current executive director or director-at-large (DAL) of SAAESD. This award is distinctive in its expectations and not necessarily coincident with retirement, election to specific office or any other specific professional benchmark.

Process. Nominations for the recognition may be submitted to the Awards Committee1, SAAESD, on or before February 1 of each year. The Awards Committee will present its recommendations to the executive committee, SAAESD. The award(s) will be presented jointly by the chair, SAAESD, and the chair of the Awards Committee during the regularly scheduled Spring meeting of the SAAESD.

Number of Awards. This award will be presented as deserving nominees are made known to and accepted by the Awards Committee, and will not necessarily be presented every year. Normally, one award may be presented annually during the Spring meeting of the SAAESD. However, under extraordinary circumstances as defined by the awards committee and accepted by the executive committee as exceptional conditions, and pursuant to the meritorious achievements of the nominees, as many as three awards may be issued in any given year.

Award. The award shall be signified by the creation of a suitably inscribed piece approved by the executive committee and presented to the recipient or his/her proxy and will be further memorialized by a resolution to be read during a suitable ceremony to be witnessed by the Southern Directors and to be spread upon the minutes of the SAAESD. Further, a plaque will be established to be maintained by the Executive Director, SAAESD, which will chronologically register the recipients as an archive for the award. The home institution shall be made aware of the recognition by formal letter from the chair, SAAESD, to the chief executive officer of the institution and its governing body (Board of Trustees, Board of Regents) with others copied as appropriate. The recipient(s) shall be announced during the annual meeting of the Experiment Station Section of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and a letter affirming the award shall be presented to the President, NASULGC.

Nominations. Nominations shall include a statement of accomplishments prepared by the nominator(s) unbeknown to the candidate and supported by letters from three (3) to five (5) former or current members of the SAAESD. Other letters of support from the home and other institutions may be submitted with the discretion of the nominator(s). Nominations shall address the contributions of the nominee to the land-grant ideal through service to include offices held, committee service, other service and, especially, special and extraordinary service activities. Such service shall pertain to SAAESD and should include for example: active participation in affairs of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP); regional, national and/or international special assignments with distinctive performance that has advanced the cause of the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors and the land-grant mission and ideal; and, research in the sciences related to agriculture. Although testimony as to the nominee’s contributions to his/her home state and institution are welcomed, they are not pivotal to assessing the contributions to the association and related activities.

1 The Awards Committee shall be a three-member standing committee. The Chair-Elect of the Association shall serve as chair of the committee with the remaining two committee members being named by the Chair, SAAESD from among the Association membership.

Action Requested: Approval.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Scifres/Hatzios, SAAESD approved proposal to establish an Excellence in Leadership Award.


Agenda Item 24.
Sun Grant Initiative

Presenter: Tom Klindt and D. C. Coston

Background: The Sun Grant Initiative, a prospective funding source for biomass/bioenergy, includes three objectives in its mission:

  1. Enhance national energy security through development, distribution and implementation of biobased energy technologies.
  2. Promote diversification and environmental sustainability of America’s agriculture through land-grant based research, extension, and education programs in renewable energy and biobased products.
  3. Promote opportunities for biobased economic diversification in rural communities.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Five land-grant universities (South Dakota State University, Oregon State University, Oklahoma State University, University of Tennessee, and Cornell) have been designated as regional centers because they have biomass production potentials and have current involvement with bioenergy research. Meetings (listening sessions) will be held at each of the universities in the coming months.


Agenda Item 25.
Executive Director Position: Process and Issues

Presenter: William H. Brown

Background: Search Committee chair, William H. Brown, will lead discussions concerning the process and issues surrounding selection of a new Executive Director to replace T. J. Helms, who is retiring September 30.

Action Requested: For discussion.

In-meeting information/discussion: A draft of the position announcement was distributed and three main issues were discussed:

  • Administrative Heads are questionning the need for this position.
  • Modifications needed to position description before being distributed; provide comments to search committee chair.
  • Process and timeline need adjusting to facilitate a fly-in in June for interview of candidates.

Agenda Item 26.
Report from Southern Region Administrative Heads

Presenter: Gale Buchanan

Background:

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Highlights concerning the future of the system included the following:

  • Need to make a collective effort toward increasing the funding base.
  • System needs a vision.
  • How can the system be empowered to get where we need to be?
    • Clean up the budget process; do a better job getting legislative champions.
    • Better collaboration with CSREES.
  • Need to adopt creative and innovative changes.
  • Energize our advocates (CARET).
  • Show appreciation to states with key legislators.
  • Acknowledge AES role in the system.

Agenda Item 27.
Report from Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting

Presenter: Vance Watson

Background: Dr. Watson will report on any action items or other items of interest occurring during the meeting of Chief Operating Officers.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Items discussed during the Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting were:

  • Drs. Vance Watson and Jon Ort (chairs of SAAESD and ASRED, respectively) will write Drs. Boethel and Neishem (SERA-IEG-3 advisor and SR-Pest Management Center, respectively) regarding plan for facilitator and the future of the position.
  • The Data Support Project with the Social Science Research Center was approved for one year at $40,000. Use of funds collected from projects outside the region will help decrease assessment for SAAESD in succeeding years.
  • SAAESD budget will remain with a level assessment for the 7th year in a row. Carryover funds will be used to cover payout expenses for Dr. Helms, etc.
  • SAAESD requested budget, with cost of living salary increases (3%), was approved.

Agenda Item 28.
Executive Director’s
Final Annual Report to the Association
March 2002

Presenter: T. J. Helms

Background: This 2002 annual spring meeting marks the end of my sixth year of service as your Executive Director. I am very proud to have had this opportunity to serve the fifteen Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations in this capacity and sincerely hope that I have in large measure, met the expectations you had of me at the outset of my term. Further, the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, MSU has been a wonderful host for the Association Office, and throughout this period we have had the fortune to be co-located with the Southern Rural Development Center.

Since July of 1996 the Association has had the additional fortune to have Anna Marie Rasberry serving as the Assistant to the Executive Director. In addition to her exemplary service to the Association she has also served ESCOP and other elements of the national system in exemplary fashion.

The following are events, activities or actions that have occurred since 1996 that I would list as having significantly impacted the Office of the Executive Director, the Association, and individual SAES Directors and your staff:

  1. Reduction of the number of full meetings of the Association from four to two per year. This single change required that we do many things differently.
  2. On-site visits to your Stations.
  3. Implementation of GPRA and subsequently, AREERA with adoption of new Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities and the Regional Supplemental Guidelines.
  4. Establishment of the Southern Region Data Support Project; utilization of this unique resource allowed us to develop specialized reports for individual directors, executive directors, other regions, and ESCOP.
  5. Development of the crosswalk of CRIS with CSREES’ GPRA Goals and Objectives in collaboration with Dr. George Cooper.
  6. Electronic publication of all Southern Cooperative Series Bulletins.
  7. Implementation of the National Information Management Support System.
  8. Development of the “Science Roadmap for Agriculture.”
  9. Development of Multiple Activity Programs (MAPs).

Regional and national responsibilities and/or activities of the Executive Director (1996 – 2002):

  1. Liaison to the Association of Regional Extension Directors.
  2. Liaison to the Association of 1890 Research Directors.
  3. AES AA to the Southern Regional Image Enhancement Activity; ESCOP representative to the national image enhancement group.
  4. USDA/CSREES Plan of Work Advisors Committee.
  5. Representative to the National Multistate Coordinating Committee.
  6. Member of the CRIS Enhancement Team; the Team was nominated for and received one of the Secretary of Agriculture’s Group Honor Awards for 1998.
  7. Various standing committees of ESCOP (Executive Committee, Chair’s Advisory Committee, Executive Vice Chair for ESCOP (1999 – 2001); Vice Chair for Science and Technology Core Committee); participation in all ESS, ESCOP, ESCOP Executive Committee, and joint ESCOP/ECOP meetings.
  8. Representative to the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program.
  9. ESCOP representative to the National Forestry Coalition.
  10. Member of the administrative group (C-BAG) for the Tropical/Subtropical Agricultural Research Program.
  11. Member of the National Cotton Council’s Joint Cotton Breeding Policy Committee and the Tecoman Cotton Winter Nursery Committee.
  12. GRPA Working Group; GPRA Alternatives Task Force.
  13. REEIS – Steering Committee (Subcommittee on Needs Assessment — Chair); REEIS Technical Committee, Chair; REEIS – Joint Application Design (JAD) Session Coordinator
  14. Chaired the external review team for CSREES’ CTDE unit.
  15. Served as a member of the 20-member Task Force commissioned to develop the “Science Roadmap of Agriculture.”

While the foregoing list is by no means comprehensive, it provides examples of the kinds of roles fulfilled by your Executive Director of which many are beyond the routine or day-to-day activities of the office. One’s success or failure may be measured in large part by the results of such, of course. However, I believe that a mature, common sense approach in dealing with my counterparts and others will have been my greatest success so far as its benefit to our Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 29.
NRSP-1: Current Research Information System
FY03 Budget Request

Presenter: Eric Young

Justification: The Current Research Information System (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. Also, CRIS will be working to interface with the new National Information Management Support System (NIMSS) and the Research, Extension, and Education Information System (REEIS) being developed by CSREES. A twenty-two thousand dollar increase in the MRF budget portion is requested for CRIS in order to provide an additional technical support position to help fulfill these goals. CRIS has not had an increase in the operating budget since 1994 and the staffing level was reduced in 1997. In addition, the entire senior staff will be eligible to retire in two years or less. An increase in funding would establish a new mid level technical position on the CRIS staff to assist in succession planning and to allow sufficient time for training with current staff. 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. With the rapidly increasing technical sophistication required, a consistently high level of system knowledge is needed to assure the integrity of the information made available through the CRIS system.

NRSP-1: Current Research Information System
Description MRF FUNDING OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Authorized FY01 Authorized FY02 Proposed FY03 Authorized FY02 Proposed FY03
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
(salary only)
32,270 32,270 27,193 132,853 177,092
Wages
(+ wage fringe)
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 53,200 163,500 160,329
TOTAL $219,398
(2.2 FTE)
$219,398
(2.2 FTE)
$240,800
(2.8 FTE)
$804,733
(9.8 FTE)
$889,580
(10.2 FTE)

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Young/Cox, NRSP-1 budget request was unanimously approved without a caveat.


Agenda Item 30.
NRSP-3: The National Atmospheric Deposition Program
FY03 Budget Request

Presenter: Jerry Arkin

NRSP-3: The National Atmospheric Deposition Program
MRF FUNDING 2OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Authorized FY01 Authorized FY02 1Proposed FY03 Authorized FY02 Proposed FY03
Salaries $104,943
(1.64 FTE)
$104,383
(1.61 FTE)
$110,167
(1.65 FTE)
$264,758
(5.70 FTE)
$275,573
(5.7 FTE)
Fringe Benefits 5,623 5,673 5,976 69,557 71,644
Wages 0 0 0 0 0
Travel 0 0 0 11,525 11,871
Supplies 0 0 0 20,080 20,682
Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment/Capital
Improvement
0 0 0 0 0
Other Direct Costs 2,196 2,706 0 13,850 14,266
TOTAL $112,762
(1.64 FTE)
$112,762
(1.61 FTE)
$116,143
(1.65 FTE)
$379,770
(5.7 FTE)
$394,036
(5.7 FTE)
1 FY 2003 requested % salary increase: 3%
2 OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING lists support from the Cooperative Agreement between the USDA-CSREES and University of Illinois.

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Arkin/Brown(LA), NRSP-3 budget request was unanimously approved with the following caveat: “Using FY 2002 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2003 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”


Agenda Item 31.
NRSP-4: A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses (IR-4)
FY03 Budget Request

Presenter: Neal Thompson

NRSP-4: A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses (IR-4)
MRF FUNDING OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Authorized FY01 Authorized FY02 Proposed FY03 Authorized FY02 Proposed FY03
Salaries $481,182
(5.0 FTE)
$481,182
(5.0 FTE)
$481,182
(5.0 FTE)
$1,153,177
(22.0 FTE)
Budget information
not available
at this time.
Fringe Benefits 299,826@26%
Wages 1,453,003
Travel 190,000
Supplies 115,000
Maintenance 0
Equipment/Capital
Improvement
28,042
Consultants, off-campus facilities renatl, postage, phone, copier maint., publications, subcontracts (biopesticide & research) 1,213,955
TOTAL $481,182
(5.0 FTE)
$481,182
(5.0 FTE)
$481,182
(5.0 FTE)
$3,000,000
(22.0 FTE)
 

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Thompson/Scifres, NRSP-4 budget request was unanimously approved with the following caveat: “Using FY 2002 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2003 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”


Agenda Item 32.
NRSP-5: Develop and Distribute Deciduous Fruit Tree Clones That Are Free of Known Graft-Transmissible Pathogen (IR-2)
FY03 Budget Request

Presenter: D. C. Coston

NRSP-5: Develop and Distribute Deciduous Fruit Tree Clones That Are Free of Known Graft-Transmissible Pathogen (IR-2)
MRF FUNDING OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING1
Actual FY01 Projected FY02 Proposed FY032 Anticipated FY02 Anticipated FY032
Salaries $123,721
(3.20 FTE)
$128,921
(3.20 FTE)
$134,078
(3.20 FTE)
$146,813
(4.20 FTE)
$152,686
(4.20 FTE)
Fringe Benefits 36,597 38,817 40,370 42,232 43,522
Wages 35,177 35,319 36,732 4,210 1,716
Travel3 5,533 7,000 7,280 6,035 6,276
Supplies 46,758 47,640 49,545 35,826 37,259
Maintenance 0 0 0 41,7121 43,380
Equipment/Capital
Improvement4
0 0 0 10,000 10,400
TOTAL $247,786
(3.20 FTE)
$257,697
(3.20 FTE)
$268,005
(3.20 FTE)
$286,828
(4.20 FTE)
$295,239
(4.20 FTE)
1 Other sources of funds include private grants, service fees, and non-reimbursed WSU costs [salaries and maintenance – $41,712 per year].
2 An increase of 4% for salaries for faculty and staff and about a 4% annual increase of costs in most categories over 2001/02.
3 Funds assigned for repair and restoration of screenhouses, greenhouse and growth chambers.
4 For repair of greenhouse cooling and installing an irrigation system for new seed and scion production block.

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Coston/Jones, NRSP-5 budget request was unanimously approved with the following caveat: “Using FY 2002 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2003 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”


Agenda Item 33.
NRSP-6: Introduction, Preservation, Classification, Distribution and Evaluation of Solanum Species
FY03 Budget Request

Presenter: Eric Young

Justification for 3% salary increase in FY 2003: The need is increasing: The size of the collection and associated labor, supplies and upkeep are rising rapidly. This combined with the flat budgets we have received in the past several years means we are “losing ground.” We ask that this problem at least be partially offset by a 3% increase for salaries in FY 2003.

NRSP-6: Introduction, Preservation, Classification, Distribution and Evaluation of Solanum Species
Description MRF FUNDING OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Authorized FY01 Authorizeda FY02 Proposedb FY03 Authorized FY02 Proposedc FY03
Salaries $94,497
(3.3 FTE)
$97,804
(3.3 FTE)
$100,739
(3.3 FTE)
$146,885
(3.1 FTE)
$154,229
(3.1 FTE)
Fringe Benefits
(salary only)
30,632 30,632 31,551 58,754 61,692
Wages
(+ wage fringe)
3,553 3,677 3,677 0 0
Travel 6,600 6,000 6,000 8,000 8,400
Supplies 18,721 16,500 16,500 0 0
Maintenance 7,572 6,962 6,961 0 0
Equipment/Capital
Improvement
0 0 0 0 0
UW Contribution
(est.)
0 0 0 66,700 70,035
TOTAL $161,575 $161,575 $165,428 $280,339 $294,356

a 3.5% salary increases
b 3.0% increase for salaries
c estimated up to 5% increase

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Young/Jones, NRSP-6 budget request was approved on a 8/7 vote with the following caveat: “Using FY 2002 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2003 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”


Agenda Item 34.
NRSP-8: National Animal Genome Research Program
FY03 Budget Request

Presenter: Jerry Cherry

Background: NRSP-8 is in its final year. The Committee is currently rewriting the project and will be requesting continuation. The revised request will include aquacultural species. No additional funding will be requested for the aquaculture program.

NRSP-8: National Animal Genome Research Program
MRF FUNDING OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
(Matching Funds/Cost Sharing)
Authorized FY02 Proposed FY03* Authorized FY02 Proposed FY03
Salaries $109,263
(3.60 FTE)
$112,905
(3.46 FTE)
$189,871
(2.67 FTE)
$187,256
(2.52 FTE)
Fringe Benefits 29,645 29,907 46,817 42,626
Wages 20,000 28,740 3,000 3,000
Travel 61,700 58,000 0 1,000
Supplies 95,122 86,178 8,000 38,500
Maintenance 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Equipment/Capital
Improvement
10,000 9,000 0 15,000
Other Direct Costs** 52,270 53,270 6,000 3,000
Non-Reimbursable
Overhead
0 0 163,400 163,400
TOTAL $380,000
(3.60 FTE)
$380,000
(3.46 FTE)
$419,088
(2.67 FTE)
$455,781
(2.52 FTE)
* Allocations to species are: 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.
** Other Direct Costs includes: genome database development, newsletters, publications, conducting workshops, preparing DNA samples, primers and probes, telephone, fax and copy costs.

Action Requested: Approval of requested budget.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Cherry/Fischer, NRSP-8 budget request was unanimously approved with the following caveat: “Using FY 2002 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2003 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”


Agenda Item 35.
S-009 FY03 Budget Request

Presenter: Jerry Arkin and Gary Pederson

Background:

MULTISTATE RESEARCH PROJECT S-009
PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION
SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR YEAR 2001

Genetic resources representing 1,036 new accessions were received, increasing the total collection maintained at the Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit (PGRCU) to 82,599 accessions. The new introductions represented a broad range of seven families, 16 genera, and 20 species from 10 countries. A total of 8,223 accessions were requested for regeneration from S-9. These included field seed increases of over 1,700 sorghum accessions to be regenerated in Puerto Rico and St. Croix.

There were 514 orders processed containing 16,918 accessions (in-vitro, plants, rhizomes, seeds, canes) with 18% (3,072 accessions) of the accessions being supplied to foreign requesters. A total of 7,032 U.S. distributions were sent to users in the S-9 region. More than 1,134 items were shipped to the National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) for long-term storage or backup. Overall, 86.9% of the collection has been backed up at NSSL (up from 72.7% in FY00 and 81.3% in FY01).

More than 118,000 records were created and 134,000 records were modified by site personnel to enhance the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) database. Passport data and plant identifications were updated from old written archived records for more than 23,000 sorghum records. Relinkage of duplicates, addition and correction of passport data was conducted on the Meridian, MS, sweet sorghum collection which had not previously been entered into GRIN.

Accessions distributed by PGRCU were utilized in a vast array of research studies throughout the the S-9 region and the world. For example, accessions (1,984) of annual clovers, special-purpose legumes, new crops, miscellaneous crops and grasses were distributed for research on phylogeny, plant and seed identification, sustainable agriculture, pasture evaluation, ozone, AFLP molecular markers, pharmaceutical crop evaluation, forage and variety screening, genes coding for enzymes, crop adaptation studies, molecular evolution of mitochondrial genes, class demonstration and education, magnesium and calcium content, exhibits, market development, gene banks, ornamental evaluation, molecular taxonomy, pest research, germplasm exchange, cover cropping, game management, botanical garden, clinical nutrition studies, enzyme and production research, weed research, salt tolerance, plant survival studies, stomatal response to light and CO2 concentration, cytogenetic studies, host range studies, drought tolerance, dryland production, oil composition, new crop development, animal feed supplements, biological control, archaeobotany, gene evolution, browse research with African livestock, biointensive gardening, protein sources, and food self sufficiency.

Regeneration and characterization was conducted during the past year for a number of crops. Watermelon regeneration was conducted on 150 accessions in pollination cages with bees and 10 accessions in the greenhouse. A total of 680 accessions of cultivated peanuts were increased and descriptors collected at Byron, GA. Twenty-seven accessions of 16 species of wild peanuts were grown for seed increase in pots in a newly-refurbished screenhouse. Seed was produced for 43 cowpea accessions in the greenhouse and 120 cowpea accessions in the field. An additional 50 accessions were increased by cooperators at Isabela, Puerto Rico. Fifty-two chile pepper accessions were increased in the field at Griffin and 5 chile accessions were increased in the greenhouse. Twenty squash accessions were increased in the field at Byron, GA, and nine morning glory accessions were increased in the greenhouse. A total of 700 accessions comprising the in vitro sweetpotato collection were regenerated in tissue culture in growth chambers. There were 23 annual clovers, 75 grass, and 143 misc. legumes and new crops that were regenerated in the field and greenhouse.

A cowpea breeding line (GC-86L-98) was released with resistance to Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) and Blackeye cowpea mosaic virus. This is the first reported cowpea germplasm line with CMV resistance. These two viruses produce cowpea stunt, which is the most important disease of cowpeas in the southeastern U.S. This line produces nice pods with large, round, white seeds and matures about 105 days after planting under Georgia growing conditions. GC-86L-98 offers an option for direct use as a late garden variety and should be useful in breeding for the control of cowpea stunt disease in commercial cultivars.

Molecular approaches were used to characterize genetic diversity in cowpeas, wild and cultivated peanuts, and subterranean clover. Work is in progress to evaluate the relationships of the subspecies of Vigna unguiculata using AFLP and SSR markers. The AFLP portion of the study has been completed. The SSR work is in the early stages using primers published by workers at IITA in Nigeria. A set of 22 peanut (Arachis sp.) DNA samples, including 18 cultivated and four wild accessions, were screened against 55 AFLP primer sets to identify polymorphic markers. No polymorphisms were found in the cultivated material. DNA was extracted from 135 wild accessions, and AFLP profiles were generated for each sample using three optimal primer sets identified in the previous screen. Study of AFLP banding patterns in subterranean clover showed similarities and differences among 255 different subclover accessions.

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 CURRENT PROGRESS AND PROJECTED PLANS FOR 2003

For the second time in two years, the USDA-ARS base funding for the PGRCU was increased. Last year, $349,370 was added in permanent funding by USDA-ARS. This year an additional $225,000 was added in permanent funding by USDA-ARS. This increase in funds will enable the PGRCU to hire a research geneticist to conduct molecular characterization and evaluation of germplasm in the collection. USDA-ARS also provided $100,000 in temporary funds for FY2002 to purchase a new DNA sequencer and upgrade other equipment in the molecular laboratory.

The addition of new funds in the last two years has revitalized the PGRCU mission at Griffin. 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. Last year’s report highlighted the increase in operating budgets for each curator, additional summer temporary labor, and initiation of a germination laboratory to conduct germination tests on all accessions in the collection. This year we have hired or are currently recruiting for additional technical support for the curators. A total of four new technician positions will be filled in the next few months. This field help will enable the PGRCU to continue 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.

Additional funds in the last year have also enabled the PGRCU to interact at meetings with users and customers. During the past year, the Research Leader has attended Crop Germplasm Committee (CGC) meetings and national commodity meetings on sorghum, peanut, clover, forage and turf grass, new crops, pepper, cowpea, sweetpotato, and watermelon. Specific crop curators have also attended their CGC and national commodity meetings. Prior to this year, funding was not available for the PGRCU to be represented at all of these meetings and communications with commodity scientists suffered. It is now a priority for the PGRCU to be represented at each CGC and national commodity meeting for crops maintained at Griffin to facilitate open communication and exchange of scientific information on plant genetic resources with our users.

During this year, PGRCU has concentrated on improving the maintenance of the collection. Seeds of most crops maintained at Griffin will survive longer with better quality at -18 C rather than 4 C. Therefore we have initiated a program to split the samples of all of these accessions. The bulk of each accession will be maintained in freezer storage at -18 C and a distribution sample to handle expected requests for the next 5 years will be maintained at 4 C. As sorghum is the largest collection maintained at Griffin (over 31,000 accessions), much of the effort this year has been devoted to sorghum. All 8,299 samples of sorghum with original seed have been moved to -18 C. Almost 700 samples from the Meridian sweet sorghum collection have been entered into GRIN, linked with duplicate accessions, and placed in -18 C storage. Over 1,600 Mali sorghum accessions were increased in St. Croix and split samples were placed in 4 and -18 C. Presently, almost 11,000 sorghum accessions have been moved to -18 C storage.

Regeneration of accessions to produce fresh, high-quality seed continues each year. Presently over 1,800 sorghum accessions are growing in Puerto Rico and St. Croix for regeneration of sorghum accessions known to be of poor quality in the collection. Accessions of other species will be regenerated during the next year at Griffin and Byron, GA, including cowpeas (200 accessions), cultivated peanuts (800), watermelon (150), peppers (50), squash (20), cucurbits (10), grasses (30), kenaf (25), eggplant (40), velvetbean (32), misc. legumes (300), and annual clovers (45). A screenhouse will be used for regeneration of 25-30 accessions of wild peanuts.

SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL ACTIONS

During the last year, three S-009 and five federal positions were filled due to replacing retired employees or new hires. Four federal technicians, two state technicians, a federal administrative technician, and a state administrative secretary were hired. Presently, there are a number of additional federal positions to fill. The warm-season grass curator position to replace Gil Lovell was readvertised, closing Feb. 28. Interviews should occur in April. The research geneticist position has been submitted to the Area Office and should be advertised by April. Four federal technician positions are currently in the hiring process. Two federal technicians have resigned to take other positions and their position descriptions have been submitted for advertisement shortly.

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 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 last year has brought a renewed vitality to the program. The momentum has continued with $225,000 in base funding provided by ARS in FY02 and $100,000 in funding for a new DNA sequencer and other equipment for the molecular laboratory. The molecular geneticist position funded with this increase will lead the PGRCU molecular program forward in conducting genetic analysis of plant germplasm through the use of molecular markers, establishment of genomic and cDNA libraries for gene specific germplasm evaluation, and collaborating with other germplasm programs in genetic analysis of collections. The molecular geneticist would also serve as a lead scientist in grant proposals providing a much better opportunity to significantly increase extramural funding for PGRCU.

REQUESTS

FUNDING REQUEST FOR FY2003
A. S-9: Authorized
FY2001
Authorized
FY2002
Requested
FY2003
Personnel $315,043 $332,646 $343,457a
Travel 1,000 1,000 1,000
Operations 51,195 48,186 48,186
Equipment 3,000 3,000 3,000
TOTAL $370,238 $384,832 $395,643
a Reflects a 3.25% increase in salaries based on projections established by The University of Georgia.
B. USDA/ARS: Authorized
FY2001
Authorized
FY2002
Requested
FY2003
Personnel $1,136,392 $1,428,960b $1,486,118d
Travel 89,406a 32,000 32,000
Indirect Research Cost/
Other Services
253,016 265,956 278,000
RSA support 40,256 10,476 11,000
Operation 263,900 253,960 214,858
Equipment 17,000 153,000c 20,000
Construction 0 0 0
Building and Field
Maintenance/Support
54,045 56,624 59,000
TOTAL $1,854,015 $2,200,976c $2,100,976
a Travel for FY01 includes relocation expense for new Research Leader.
b Includes new molecular geneticist position and eight federal temporary student positions previously in RSA.
c Includes $100,000 in temporary funding for DNA sequencer.
d Includes an average 4% projected increase in salaries.

Action Requested: Increase the S-009 FY03 personal services budget in the amount of $10,811 for a total S-009 FY03 budget of $395,643. The requested increase reflects a 3.25% increase in salaries based on The University of Georgia salary projections.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Arkin/Coston, S-009 budget request was unanimously approved with the following caveat: “Using FY 2002 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2003 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller.”


Agenda Item 36.
Cloning Cattle and Stem Cell Research

Presenter: Jerry Cherry and Steven Stice

Background: Dr. Steven Stice, Eminent Scholar for Animal and Dairy Science at the University of Georgia, will discuss his research and implications of his work on “Cloning Cattle and Stem Cell Research in Mammalian Species.”

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: (This agenda item was cancelled.)


Agenda Item 37.
Biobased Industries/Economy

Presenter: Jim Fischer and David Brune

Background: The Southern Directors approved SRDC 00-03, “Science and engineering for biobased industries and economy”, effective October 2000. This development committee has attracted broad-ranging interest from across the country with participation from almost every state.

Investments of billions of dollars in biotechnology have resulted in an extensive technology base that is posed to make a major revolution in our society. A core of biological and agricultural engineers has emerged in recent years that are conducting essential engineering research to develop technology for this area. Much of the fundamental research that has been done will require the application of engineering technology to “scale up” to commercial application.

It is important that the Southern Directors be brought up to date on the progress of this SRDC. David Brune is chair of the committee, and will present a progress report today. He will also discuss related research programs in ARS and DOE.

Key issues being addressed:

OBJECTIVE I:
Task 1.
Task 2.
Task 3.
Feedstock Supply
Quantification and characterization
Harvest, process and handling
Modeling integrated feedstock supply and process systems
OBJECTIVE II:
Task 1.
Task 2.
Task 3.
Biofuel Production Systems and Processes
Pretreatments for bioconversion processes
Biological conversion processes
Direct thermochemical conversion processes
OBJECTIVE III:
Task 1.
Task 2.
Task 3.
Biomaterials
Raw feedstocks evaluation
Methodologies for producing biomaterials
Biomaterial applications
OBJECTIVE IV:
Task 1.
Task 2.
Task 3.
Biobased Chemicals
Biochemical identification and characterization
Process development
Product applications
OBJECTIVE V:
Task 1.
Task 2.
Task 3.
Education and Outreach
Develop a national resource center for biomass education
Develop an advisory board for the national resource center
Develop educational materials in high-priority topic areas

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 38.
Review New or Modified Activities

Presenter: Vance Watson

Background: The following activities will be terminating as noted. Administrative Advisors of IEGs and SERAs have been notified of the need for action prior to the fall meeting of the association. Administrative Advisors of MRF projects have been notified of the need to request a Development Committee if a replacement activity is desired.

Activity type Activity # Activity Title Adm. Advisor
2002 Terminations
IEG 25 Plant Root Environment John Sherwood (GA)
IEG 51 Mycotoxins in Food and Feed Grains John Sherwood (GA)
IEG 72 Enhancing Reproductive Efficiency in Cattle Nancy Cox (KY)
SERA-IEG 11 Review and Coordination of Oilseed Rape Research Programs in the Southern Region Al Smith (GA
SERA-IEG 12 Southern Forest Insect Worker Conference Gerald Jubb (VA)
SERA-IEG 27 Nursery Crop and Landscape Systems Dewayne Ingram (KY)
2002 MRF terminations (Activities without Development Committees to write replacement.)
MRF-S 276 Rural Restructuring: Causes and Consequences of Globalized Agricultural and Natural Resource Systems Bo Beaulieu (SRDC)
MRF-S 278 Food Demand, Nutrition and Consumer Behavior Bob Shulstad (GA)
MRF-S 279 Sustaining and Improving Profitability of Wheat/Stocker Cattle Enterprise in the Southern Great Plains Frank Gilstrap (TX)
MRF-S 283 Develop and Assess Precision Farming Technology and Its Economic and Environmental Impacts Allan Jones (TX)
2003 MRF Terminations
MRF-S 009 Plant Genetic Resource Conservation and Utilization Jerry Arkin (GA)
MRF-S 222 Fruit and Vegetable Supply-Chain Management, Innovations, and Competitiveness Bob Shulstad (GA)
MRF-S 277 Breeding to Optimize Maternal Performance and Reproduction of Beef Cows in the Southern Region David Morrison (LA)
MRF-S 280 Mineralogical Controls on Colloid Dispersion and Solid-Phase Speciation of Soil Contaminants Eric Young (NC)
MRF-S 285 Reproductive Performance of Turkeys Jerry Cherry (GA)
MRF-S 287 Impacts of Trade Agreements and Economic Policies on Southern Agriculture Tom Klindt (TN)
MRF-S 288 Nutritional Systems for Swine to Increase Reproductive Efficiency Nancy Cox (KY)

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: When a new S-009 project is proposed, the committee should consider requesting a 10-20 year duration, as allowed by the National Multistate Research Guidelines. Also, the identifier S-1009 will be reserved for use with the replacement activity.


Agenda Item 39.
Cotton Incorporated Breeding and Genetics Initiative

Presenter: Roy Cantrell

Background: An overview will be presented of the Cotton Incorporated Breeding and Genetics Initiative launched in 2002. This expanded research is a result of a multi-year process to identify areas in the public sector where Cotton Incorporated can accelerate and expand cotton germplasm enhancement and cotton genetics research. Research projects totaling approximately $750,000 will be started in 2002. Plans are underway to increase this amount in future years. This is in addition to the existing core and state-support research project related to these research topics. The focus will address issues of eroding fiber quality of the US crop, as well as yield stagnation, stability and genetic diversity of the US cotton crop. Four key areas of the initiative will be described at the SAAESD meeting in Savannah:

  • Cotton germplasm development and enhancement
  • Regional breeder’s testing network
  • DNA marker development and application to cotton
  • Cotton Incorporated Fellowship (CIF) program

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: (See Powerpoint presentation)


Agenda Item 40.
Proposed Amendment to the SAAESD By-Laws

Presenter: T. J. Helms

Background: For many years the SAAESD has elected officers during the annual spring meeting with the terms of office beginning at the close of the annual NASULGC meeting. The by-laws do not stipulate when or during which meeting elections are to occur, but rather require that terms of officers shall begin at the conclusion of the annual meeting of NASULGC. However, since the SAAESD no longer meets at the NASULGC meeting venue, there is not an orderly “passing of the gavel” by the Association. As an alternative the Executive Committee concurred with the notion of electing new officers during the fall meeting that will now be held in conjunction with the annual ESS meeting with terms of office beginning at that time as well. Therefore, in keeping with the one-month advanced notice requirement, the following amendment to the Association by-laws is proposed (February 19, 2002).

Current language in the by-laws:

“Elections: …. . Terms of officers begin with the conclusion of the annual meeting of the NASULGC (regardless of whether there is a meeting of this Association) and ends at the same time the following year.”

Proposed change to:

“Terms of officers begin with the conclusion of the annual fall meeting of the Association.”

Action Requested: Approval of the amendment.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Fischer/Scifres, SAAESD approved amendments to SAAESD By-Laws changing the term of office to begin with the conclusion of the annual fall meeting of the Association.


Agenda Item 41.
Multistate Research Guidelines Amendments

Presenter: T. J. Helms

Background: Statements in the Multistate Research Guidelines regarding USDA/CSREES and Regional Association approval of Rapid Response Projects are incorrect in describing the procedures. These were reviewed by the National Multistate Coordinating Committee (NMCC) during its November 2001 in Atlanta. Subsequent to the NMCC meeting the following amendments were reviewed and approved by the Executive Directors, Dr. George Cooper, Deputy Administrator, and by ESCOP in March, 2002:

  1. Amend the sentence at the top of page 6 (“Neither CSREES nor regional association approval is required”) to read: “Proposals are forwarded electronically by the Executive Director to the Multistate Research Office, CSREES for review and approval.” Explanation: CSREES must be in the approval channel because Rapid Response Projects are, in fact Multistate Research Projects. Expenditure of formula funds require approval by CSREES, where these funds will support the efforts of the rapid response project.
  2. Amend the statement regarding “Authorization” in Appendix F (p. 26) from “Administrative Adviser” to “Chair of the Regional Association.” Explanation: Since proposals are submitted to CSREES through the Executive Director by the Chair of the Regional Association and the Chair is, technically, the initial Administrative Adviser for the activity, he/she is the person who authorizes the activity in behalf of the petitioning Directors and the Regional Association(s).
  3. Amend Appendix N (p. 42) by insertion after “Proposal is forwarded electronically to …. CSREES” of the following:

    (Left Side) Approval of the Activity with Notification to Directors of Paticipating Stations, the Chair of the Regional Association, and the Executive Director.(Right Side) Multistate Research Office, CSREES

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 42.
National Research Support Projects Evaluation

Presenter: George Cooper and Liesel Ritchie

Background: The Social Science Research Center (SSRC) at Mississippi State University conducted an evaluation of the National Research Support Projects (NRSP) on behalf of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The purpose of this project was to determine the effectiveness of, support for, and understanding of the overall NRSP Program, rather than individual projects. The interview pool consisted of twenty-eight randomly selected current and past administrative advisors and directors of the NRSPs, as well as those who financially support the projects, providing a rich variety of perspectives. This session will highlight the preliminary findings of the NRSP evaluation, which were presented at the ESCOP meeting in early March 2002, and provide an overview of next steps in the evaluation process.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 43.
Upcoming Meetings

Presenter: Vance Watson

Background:

Regional Meeting, Experiment Station Section (ESS) Meeting, and SAES/ARD Workshop:

Sunday, September 22
6-9pm – Opening ReceptionMonday, September 23
8-12 – SAAESD Meeting
1-5 – ESS Meeting

Tuesday, September 24
8-5 – SAES/ARD Workshop

Wednesday, September 25
8-12 – SAES/ARD Workshop

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Dr. Bill Brown (FL) distributed brochures and a tentative schedule for the spring 2003 meeting at Hawks Cay Resort on Duck Key in the Florida Keys, scheduled for March 30 – April 2, 2003.


Agenda Item 44.
Resolutions Committee Report

Presenter: William F. Brown and Roland Mote

Background: Resolutions will be presented to those persons leaving the ranks of the Association.

Action Requested: For information.

In-meeting information/discussion: Resolutions (copies available on request from Executive Director’s office) as follows were presented:

  • Dr. Allen Dunn – leaving Clemson AES for another position.
  • Dr. Diane Smathers – leaving Clemson AES for another position.
  • Dr. Calvin Schoulties – leaving Clemson AES for another position.
  • University of Georgia hosts for an excellent meeting and social events.

Action Taken: Resolutions as presented were unanimously approved as shown by a round of applause.


Agenda Item 45.
Roundtable Discussion: State Budget Situations

Presenter: Vance Watson

Background: A representative from each state will discuss their respective state budget situation.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 46.
Additional Announcements, Discussions, and Adjournment

Presenter: Vance Watson

Background: Any additional announcements and discussions will precede adjournment.

Action Requested: For information.