September 22, 2003 Meeting Minutes

SAAESD Fall Meeting

September 22, 2003
Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Dearborn, MI


Participants  |  Action Items  |  Agenda


Participants

SAAESD:
Jerry Arkin, GA
Susan Barefoot, SC
David Boethel, LA
William F. Brown, FL
William H. Brown, LA
Jerry Cherry, GA
Lisa Collins, KY
D. C. Coston, OK
Nancy Cox, MS
Mary Duryea, FL
Richard Jones, FL
Skip Jubb, VA
Steve Leath, NC
Roland Mote, TN
Rick Roeder, AR
Clarence Watson, MS
Bob Whitson, TX
Greg Weidemann, AR
Eric Young, Exec. Dir.
Liaison:
Sam Donald, ARD Exec. Dir.

Action Items

Agenda Item 2. IPM Policy Committee Report – The Committee’s recommendations, as amended during discussion, were approved.
Agenda Item 4. Cotton Winter Nursery Support – Eric Young was asked to send the Directors information on each state’s cotton acreage/value and what the relative subsidy would be based on these figures. Eric will also discuss this further with the Cotton Winter Nursery Advisory Committee at the Beltwide Cotton Conference in January. A final decision on a potential subsidy for 2004/05 fiscal year will be made at the SAAESD Spring meeting.
Agenda Item 5. IEG Renewal Requests – All IEG renewal requests were approved.
Agenda Item 6. SERA Renewal Requests – All recommendations of the SERA Task Force for SERA renewals were approved.
Agenda Item 13. Nominating Committee Report – Nancy Cox was approved as Chair-elect for 2003/04.


Agenda

Time Agenda # Agenda Item – Presenter
8:00 Presentation of SAAESD “Gavel” – Eric Young
8:05 Welcome and Introductions – Greg Weidemann
8:15 1. Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions – Greg Weidemann
1a Southern Pine Beetle Conference Report – Bob Whitson
8:20 2. IPM Policy Committee Report – David Boethel
8:30 3. National Institute for Agricultural Security Report – D.C. Coston
8:40 4. Cotton Winter Nursery Support – Eric Young
8:50 5. IEG Renewal Requests – Greg Weidemann
9:00 6. SERA Renewal Requests: Recommendations from Task Force – Eric Young
9:20 7. Proposed CSREES Civil Rights Rules – Eric Young
9:40 8. Plan of Work Update – Eric Young
8a ED Report – Eric Young
10:00 Break
10:30 9. Spring 2004 Meeting – Eric Young and John Jensen
10:40 10. Spring 2005 Meeting – Eric Young
10:50 11. 2004 Joint COPS Meeting and SAES/ARD Workshop – Eric Young and D.C. Coston
11:00 12. Multitstate Research Committee (MRC) Report – William F. Brown
11:15 13. Nominating Committee Report – William H. Brown
11:20 14. Resolutions Committee Report – Roland Mote and Clarence Watson
11:30 15. Closing Remarks and Announcements – Greg Weidemann

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

Presenter: Greg Weidemann

Background: The following items will be presented for approval:

  • Agenda
  • Minutes from the March-April, 2003 meeting in Duck Key, FL
  • Interim Actions:
    • Appointed Roland Mote (TN) as member of the REEIS User’s Group.
    • Appointed John Jensen (AL) as member of the Southern Rural Development Center’s Board of Directors.
    • Appointed Tom Klindt (TN) as member of the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee.
    • Appointed Clarence Watson (MS) as member of the Southern Region IPM Policy Committee.
    • Appointed David Boethel (LA) as Chair, Southern Region IPM Policy Committee.
    • Appointed Rick Roeder (AR) as the Administrative Advisor to two companion multistate research projects: S-1005 “Sources, Dispersal and Management of Stable Flies on Grazing Beef and Dairy Cattle” and S-1006 “Insect and Manure Management in Poultry Systems: Elements Relative to Food Safety and Nuisance Issues,” replacing Fred Knapp.
    • Appointed Steven Leath (NC) as member of the Southern Region IPM Policy Committee.
    • Appointed Steven Leath (NC) as the Administrative Advisor to S-297 “Soil Microbial Taxonomic and Functional Diversity as Affected by Land Use and Management,” replacing Kriton Hatzios.
    • Appointed Charles Scifres (TX) as regional representative on the NRSP Review Committee.
    • Appointed Richard Jones (FL) as the Administrative Advisor to S-300 “Mosquito and Agricultural Pest Management in Riceland Ecosystems,” replacing Fred Knapp.
    • Approved DC-303, “Production, Harvest, Storage, and Delivery of Herbaceous Energy Crops for Fuel and Chemicals,” to write a new project; Gerald Jubb, Administrative Advisor.
    • Approved DC-302, “Irrigation Management for Humid and Sub-Humid Areas,” to write a new project; Gerald Arkin, Adminstrative Advisor.
    • Approved DC-301, “Impacts of Trade and Domestic Policies on Southern Agriculture,” to write a replacement project for S-287; Tom Klint, Administrative Advisor.
    • Appointed Ron Lacewell (TX) as the Administrative Advisor for the S-282 replacement project, “Crop Resistance for Management of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Sustainable Agriculture,” when it is approved in October as S-1015.
    • Appointed Tom Klindt (TN) as the southern region 1862 Experiment Station Directors’ representative to Southern SARE.
    • Appointed Steven Leath (NC) as members of the Joint Cotton Breeding Policy Committee (replacing Vance Watson at the end of 2003 term) and Tecoman Winter Nursery Steering Committee (replacing Johnny Wynne).
    • Appointed Mary Duryea (FL) as the Administrative Advisor for SERA-IEG25, “Turf,” replacing Johnny Wynne.
    • Appointed Clarence Watson (MS) as the Administrative Advisor for AC-1, “Crops and Soils,” replacing Johnny Wynne.
    • Appointed Bob Westerman (OK) as the Administrative Advisor for S-304, “Development of Genetic Resources for Cotton,” replacing Johnny Wynne.
    • Appointed Ralph Otto (CSREES) as the CSREES representative to the southern region Multistate Research Committee.
    • Appointed Roland Mote (TN) as the Administrative Advisor to S-1007, “The Science and Engineering for a Biobased Industry and Economy,” replacing Jim Fischer.
    • Approved DC-304, “Fruit and Vegetable Supply-Chain Management, Innovations, and Competitiveness,” to write a replacement project for S-222; Bob Shulstad, Administrative Advisor.
    • Appointed Steven Hodges (VA) as the Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-17, “Minimizing Agricultural Phosphorus Run-off Losses for Protection of the Water Resource,” replacing Allan Jones.
    • Appointed Marty Fuller (MS) as the Administrative Advisor to S-1011, “Water Quality Methodology for Crop Protection Chemicals,” replacing Neal Thompson.
    • Approved DC-305, “Enhancing Reproductive Efficiency in Poultry,” to write a replacement project for S-285; Jerry Cherry, Administrative Advisor.

Action Requested: Approval.

Action Taken: Action Taken: Southern Pine Beetle Conference report (Whitson) and ED report (Young) added as agenda items 1a and 8a. Amended Agenda approved (Brown/Coston), Spring 2003 Minutes approved (Jubb/Arkin), and Interim Actions approved (Jones/Watson).


Agenda Item 2.
IPM Policy Committee Report

Presenter: David Boethel

Background: The IPM Committee has discussed several issues related to the management of the IPM Competitive Grant Program in the Southern Region, the transition of the Southern Region Pest Management Center at the University of Florida to the Southern Region Integrated Pest Management Center at North Carolina State University, and the liaison between the SAAESD and the IPM Center. The following recommendations emerged from these discussions:

  • The Executive Director, SAAESD, serve as a voting member on the Steering Committee for the IPM Center.
  • The Chairman of the SAAESD IPM Committee or his/her representative serves as a voting member on the Advisory Council for the IPM Center.
  • The Chairman of the SAAESD IPM Committee or his/her representative work with the IPM Center Director to develop the RFA, help select the peer panel, and attend the peer panel meeting to evaluate the proposals submitted for the Southern Region IPM Competitive Grant Program.
  • Because Dr. Fred Knapp, retired Assistant Director, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, has agreed to serve as grants manager during this year of transition, the IPM Committee recommends that he be paid a stipend of $6,000 plus travel expenses for his services.

It is the opinion of the IPM Committee that adoption of these recommendations will ensure the oversight of the SAAESD for the IPM Grant Program in the region, establish a linkage between the SAAESD and the new IPM Center, and provide for transitional management of the IPM Grant Program this year. Next year the grant program will be managed by the IPM Center with assistance from the Advisory Council, the Steering Committee, and the IPM facilitator for the Southern Region, Ms. Shani File.

According to Dr. Fred Knapp, 110 letters of intent have been submitted for the current grant cycle as compared to 98 last year. Approximately, 70 grants were submitted last year so the number of proposals should be increased this year as well. The deadline for submission of proposals is October 29, 2003, and dates in early December 2003 are being discussed for the meeting of the peer panel.

Action Requested: Discussion and approval of recommendations presented.

Action Taken: The Committee’s recommendations were amended to indicate that when someone is needed to represent the IPM Policy Committee Chair on the Regional IPM Center’s Steering Committee or in developing the RFA, that representative should be another member of the IPM Policy Committee. The amended recommendations were approved (Boethel/Coston).


Agenda Item 3.
National Institute for Agricultural Security (NIAS) Report

Presenter: D.C. Coston

Background:

Report and Proposed Activities: September 22, 2003
NIAS Activities in 2003
NIAS has gotten off to a great start in 2003. The newly formed Institute has already forged an identity as a ready means for federal agencies to access the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. NIAS has proved a useful mechanism for universities to collaborate on biosecurity research with each other, with the private sector and with new federal agency partners.

NIAS Operations

  • FormationNIAS was officially incorporated at the beginning of the year. A Board of Directors (BOD) was appointed and working by-laws were approved by the BOD. NIAS filed for non-profit status; an Executive Director (ED) was appointed; and a Plan of Activities was drafted by the ED and approved by the BOD. A liaison from Extension was appointed to the BOD and an offer to appoint a liaison has been made to Academic Program leadership. The NIAS BOD has convened in person several times during the year and has held a series of teleconferences.
  • MembershipMembership in NIAS is governed by the Board of Directors; all participating institutions must pay membership dues. ESCOP provided $100,000 in 2003 to establish NIAS; consequently, all State Agricultural Experiment Stations are members of NIAS.
  • StaffingNIAS is staffed by a part-time Executive Director and a part-time Administrative Assistant, with support from the regional association Executive Directors.

NIAS Activities

  • CommunicationsNIAS established a prototype web site on homeland security issues of concern to the Experiment Station Directors and has sent email updates on pertinent homeland security issues to the Directors.
  • Budget SupportThe North Central ED has served as the liaison between NIAS and the ESCOP Budget and Legislative (BL) Committee. NIAS has provided background resource information and analysis to the ESCOP BL Committee on homeland security issues. The NIAS ED and the Western ED met with the NASULGC Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC’s) advocacy group (Blue Ribbon Team – BRT), to insure full communication and coordination of activities.
  • Building IdentityTo establish the identity of NIAS and to build the foundation for future collaborative efforts, the NIAS ED has met regularly with federal agency officials to talk about the role of the agricultural research and education system in addressing homeland security and biosecurity concerns. Outside of USDA, most federal agency officials are not aware of the resources that the Experiment Stations can leverage to assist in addressing biosecurity concerns. There is now a growing recognition of the need to address potential bioterrorist threats against the agricultural production and food processing system and a growing recognition of the role of the Experiment Station in addressing these threats.
    • White HouseThe NIAS ED has had a series of meetings with members of the White House Council on Homeland Security, the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP), and the Office of Management and Budget. In the last several months, these agencies have taken a much more direct role in looking at biosecurity and agriculture.
    • Department of AgricultureThe NIAS ED has maintained regular communication with the leadership and personnel in the Office of the Secretary; the Office of Research, Education and Economics (REE); the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
    • Department of Homeland SecurityBased on guidance from the White House Council on Homeland Security, OSTP, and key Congressional offices, projects are being developed to address issues of interest to the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the Department of Defense.
    • Congressional LiaisonThe NIAS ED has met with key Congressional offices to inform them about the formation of NIAS and to discuss the important role of the Agricultural Experiment Stations in addressing biosecurity concerns. Congressional staff and members have expressed strong interest in the role of NIAS is facilitating coordination and communication with and among the Experiment Stations.

Projects

  • CollaborationThe NIAS Directors and the NIAS ED have worked to facilitate communication and collaboration among Experiment Stations and universities as university-based biosecurity projects have developed. NIAS is exploring the possibility of collaborative projects with a number of institutions
    • NIAS is a co-sponsor of an international workshop on managing the impacts of bioterrorist attacks on world food trade, which is being hosted by Texas A&M’s Institute for Countermeasures Against Bioterrorism (ICAB).
    • NIAS has had a series of discussions with the leadership of the Rocky Mountain Institute (Colorado) and has explored possible collaboration on a regional project to look at the role of Extension and the research community as components of the “first detector” network.
    • NIAS has held a series of discussions with the Institute of Homeland Security, ANSER (a former subsidiary of the RAND Corporation) to develop joint proposals to run agrosecurity seminars and emergency management simulations.
    • The Southern Region ED has served as an ad hoc liaison between NIAS and the proponents of a national center for crop biosecurity being explored by the American Phytopathological Society.
    • The NIAS ED presented a paper describing NIAS at the international meetings of the Institute of Food Technology and has had subsequent discussions with the leadership of IFT regarding possible collaborative activities. There have also been related meetings with food industry research leaders and food industry association representatives.
    • The NIAS ED presented a paper describing NIAS at the annual meetings of the American Chemical Society, which has led to subsequent discussions with agrichemical industry groups and federal agency personnel.
    • The NIAS ED participated as a panelist in the NE regional meeting hosted by Cornell on the role of Extension in responding to acts of bioterrorism, which led to subsequent and ongoing discussions with the leadership of EDEN.
    • In response to suggestions from federal agency personnel and university specialists, the NIAS BOD is establishing “technical advisory committees” for the BOD within NIAS, creating a mechanism for sustained discussions between university and federal agency personnel on issues of mutual interest. Federal agency personnel could participate on an ad hoc basis. This approach may be used to facilitate appropriate communication with APHIS, ARS, ERS, FDA, CSREES, the NPDN, and others.
  • Site Security and Management Practices for Biological AgentsIn response to concerns raised in the USDA Inspector General’s report on site visits to university research facilities, a project has been developed and proposed to CSREES to develop a non-regulatory set of management alternatives for Experiment Stations to manage potentially hazardous biological agents (non-select agents) and secure research facilities. A team of experts will be convened, several institutions will be surveyed in detail, and all Experiment Stations will be surveyed to identify best management practices for handling hazardous non-select agents. Expert panels will be convened to review the survey results and will report on suggested guidelines for site security assessments and recommended management practices for handling hazardous non-select biological agents.

NIAS Opportunities in 2004
NIAS Opportunities in 2004

Based on the discussions with federal agencies and Congressional office, a list of potential projects for NIAS and the Experiment Stations has been identified for 2004. A description of these potential projects will be provided at the NIAS member meeting. NIAS will seek support for these projects from federal agencies, foundations and collaborating institutions. Individual projects will be developed as funding is secured.

Funding Recommendation

The NIAS Board of Directors recommends that the NIAS membership request a continuation of support from ESCOP at the current level of $100,000 for the year 2004.

This funding will enable NIAS to continue the activities initiated in 2003:

  • providing part-time staff support,
  • developing information resources for building budget requests,
  • providing communications and news services to the Directors, and
  • serving as a visible liaison to the federal agencies that are beginning to address agrosecurity research issues.

This funding will also provide membership in NIAS for all State Agricultural Experiment Stations, which will enable NIAS to effectively represent the interests of all of the Experiment Stations to federal agencies regarding biosecurity and homeland security. In addition, this funding will enable NIAS to pursue additional funds for implementing critical homeland and biosecurity security projects on behalf of the Experiment Stations.

Action Requested: For information.


Agenda Item 4.
Cotton Winter Nursery Support

Presenter: Eric Young

Background: Income from user fees at the Tecoman Cotton Winter Nursery (CWN) in Mexico has decreased from approx $380,000 in 2001 to $230,000 in 2003 due to decreased usage, particularly by industry. This decrease has resulted in an operating budget deficit that is currently being underwritten by ARS and Cotton Incorporated. At our Spring ’03 meeting a discussion was held to determine if there is interest among the Southern Directors in developing a mechanism to help support the CWN. The Executive Director was asked to look at possibilities, including: formation of a multistate activity to enable use of Multistate Research Funds; assist faculty who use the nursery by supplementing an increase in user fees; or some other means of subsidizing the nursery. Various possibilities for providing regional CWN support will be discussed.

Action Requested: For discussion and action as appropriate.

Action Taken: Various means of subsidizing the Cotton Winter Nursery were discussed. The consensus was that if a subsidy were to be given, the most equitable way to determine each state’s portion was based on cotton acreage or value. Eric Young was asked to send the Directors information on each state’s cotton acreage/value and what the relative subsidy would be based on these figures. Eric will also discuss this further with the Cotton Winter Nursery Advisory Committee at the Beltwide Cotton Conference in January. A final decision on a potential subsidy for 2004/05 fiscal year will be made at the SAAESD Spring meeting.


Agenda Item 5.
IEG Renewal Requests

Presenter: Greg Weidemann

Background:

Activities requesting renewal/revision are:

Activity #
(Adm. Advisor)
Activity Title Status
IEG-13
(Ken Koonce, LA)
Statisticians Group Proposal requests continuation for a five-year term.
IEG-40
(Greg Brown, VA)
Genetics and Breeding of Southern Forest Trees Proposal requests renewal for a five-year term; AC-13 recommends renewal; Review requested from AC-6.

Status of the following activities is presented for information only:

Activity #
(Adm. Advisor)
Activity Title Status
IEG-73
(Bob Westerman, OK)
Classifying Soils for Solute Transport as Affected by Soil Properties and Landscape Positions Terminating 9/30/02. No renewal request received.

Action Requested: Approval of requests as presented.

Action Taken: All IEG renewal requests were approved (Coston/Jubb).


Agenda Item 6.
SERA Renewal Requests:
Task Force Recommendations

Presenter: Eric Young

Background:

Context
Nine SERA-IEG proposals have been submitted for renewal. As consideration is given to approving the proposals, it is important to take into account the following general contextual factors that have evolved over the past five years of life of these SERAs:

  • There is an increased expectation for multistate cooperation
  • There is an increased expectation for tangible outputs from research and extension
  • There is wider use of information technology tools for information sharing, which can enhance the productivity of face-to-face meetings
  • There is an expectation that SERA-IEGs continue to serve the purpose of sharing information on what each state is doing, but also to use the opportunity to plan and conduct other collaborative activities that improve research and extension in the region.

Recommendations to ASRED/SAAESD
It is recommended that ASRED/SAAESD consider the following action regarding SERA-IEG proposals.

Activities requesting renewal/revision are:

Activity #
(Adm. Advisor)
Activity Title Task Force Recommendation
SERA-IEG-5
(W. H. Brown, LA)
Sweet Potato Collaborators Conference
(Proposal)
Approve a one-year extension and an additional 4 years upon receipt of a revised proposal which addresses the following:

  • Provide the functional assignment (research, extension, or other) of each participant.
  • Develop plans for assuring the website is kept updated and for including access to end-user information.
  • Consider an objective that deals with multistate collaboration in development of extension educational materials for staff development and/or end-users.
SERA-IEG-7
(Richard Jones, FL)
Biology and Management of Peanut Insects and Other Arthropods
(Proposal)
Approve a one-year extension and an additional 4 years upon receipt of a revised proposal which addresses the following:

  • Provide participant information including name, institution/organization and functional assignment (research, extension, or other).
  • Develop plans for creating and maintaining a website for the SERA-IEG which provides information useful not only to participants but also to end-users.
  • Consider an objective that deals with multistate collaboration in development of extension educational materials for staff development and/or end-users.
SERA-IEG-8
(Greg Weidemann, AR)
Fescue Endophyte Research and Extension
(Proposal)
Approve for five years, but request that, during year 1, the group:

  • Designate the functional assignment (research, extension, or other) of each participant.
  • Consider amending objectives to recognize what is already stated in the educational plan, i.e., to collaborate in the multistate development of extension educational materials in both printed and web-based format.
SERA-IEG-9
(Marty Fuller, MS)
Aquatic Food Animals from Warm Water Aquaculture
(Proposal)
Approve for five years, with the suggestion that, within year 1, the group:

  • Update the website (last update was Feb 02) and consider providing information on the web that is focused on end-users.
SERA-IEG-14
(Greg Weidemann, AR)
Development and Evaluation of Bunch and Muscadine Grapes for Fresh Market, Juice, Wine, and Other Products
(Proposal)
Approve a one-year extension and an additional 4 years upon receipt of a revised proposal which addresses the following:

  • Designate the functional assignment (research, extension, or other) of each participant.
  • Develop plans for creating and maintaining a website for the SERA-IEG which provides information useful not only to participants but also to end-users. (The educational plan indicates that information will be disseminated via the website, but there is no evidence of a website).
  • Consider an objective that deals with multistate collaboration in development of extension educational materials for staff development and/or end-users.
SERA-IEG-15
(Terry Kiser, MS)
Competitiveness and Sustainability of the Southern Dairy Industry
(Proposal)
Approve for 5 years with the following suggestions to be considered during year 1:

  • Provide participant information including name, institution/organization and functional assignment (research, extension, or other).
  • Revise objective 4 to include plans for a website which provides information useful not only to participants but also to end-users.
  • Consider an objective that deals with multistate collaboration in development of extension educational materials for staff development and/or end-users.
SERA-IEG-17
(Steve Hodges, VT)
Minimizing Agricultural Phosphorus Run-off Losses for Protection of the Water Resource
(Proposal)
Approve for five years with the suggestions to be considered during year 1:

  • Designate the functional assignment (research, extension, or other) of each participant.
  • Website is good; should be kept up to date.
SERA-IEG-18
(William H. Brown, LA)
Rice Technical Workers Group
(Proposal)
Approve a one-year extension and an additional 4 years upon receipt of a revised proposal which addresses the following:

  • Provide participant information including name, institution/organization and functional assignment (research, extension, or other).
  • Develop plans for creating and maintaining a website for the SERA-IEG which provides information useful not only to participants but also to end-users.
  • Consider an objective that deals with multistate collaboration in development of extension educational materials for staff development and/or end-users.
SERA-IEG-19
(Gail Cramer, LA)
The Importance of Health to Rural Communities – Economic Impacts and Control and Prevention of Disease and Injury
(Proposal)
Approve a one-year extension and an additional 4 years upon receipt of a revised proposal which addresses the following:

  • Provide participant information including name, institution/organization and functional assignment (research, extension, or other).
  • Consider an objective that deals with multistate collaboration in development of extension educational materials for staff development and/or end-users.
  • Develop plans for maintaining a website for the SERA-IEG which provides information useful not only to participants but also to end-users.

Status of the following activities is presented for information only:

Activity #
(Adm. Advisor)
Activity Title Status
SERA-IEG-16
(Bo Beaulieu, SRDC)
Rural Infrastructure as a Cause and Consequence of Rural Economic Development and Quality of Life Terminating 9/30/02. Will not request renewal as it is currently structured.
SERA-IEG-28
(Tom Knecht, MS)
Image Enhancement Terminated 4/03/03 with concurrence of both AES and CES directors.
SERA-IEG-29
(Skip Jubb, VA)
Black Fly Biology, Economic Problems, and Management Terminated 9/30/03; No renewal requested due to group being inactive.

Action Requested: Approval of Task Force recommendations.

Action Taken: All recommendations of the SERA Task Force for SERA renewals were approved (Jubb/Cox). The SERA Task Force was requested to continue following up on their original charge from last Spring’s joint meeting.


Agenda Item 7.
Proposed CSREES Civil Rights Rules

Presenter: Eric Young

Background: ESCOP’s comments on the proposed Civil Rights Reviews are shown below.

Letter to Dr. Colien Hefferan, CSREES — July 11, 2003

Dear Dr. Hefferan:Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed guidelines for Civil Rights Reviews of Extension and Experiment Stations. I, as ESCOP Chair, appointed a committee chaired by Paul Rasmussen to review the proposal.

Our primary concern with the proposal is that the format appears to have been developed for Extension. Our projects are quite different from Extension programs, and as such require a different method of review.

We would be happy to meet with you and/or your staff to discuss the proposal further.

While we have some differences in the approach needed for Civil Rights Review, we applaud CSREES for considering these important needs.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Angle, Chair
ESCOP

CIVIL RIGHTS REVIEW PROPOSAL FROM CSREES
A response from ESCOP
CSREES is to be commended for their efforts to assure equal treatment and access by all people in hiring, program identification and delivery in the Cooperative Extension Service and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations.

The proposed guidelines from CSREES for Civil Rights Reviews of Extension and Experiment Stations seem to be focused on programs with little or no consideration for the basic differences between the programs of Cooperative Extension and the projects of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. The guidelines further ignore the procedure mandated by congress to provide Plans of Work that must be approved by CSREES. The approved Plans of Work also require annual reports to be submitted to CSREES. In the reports can be found accountability, use of Stakeholder groups and advisory committees and procedures. The responses uniformly agree that the proposed Civil Rights Reviews should take into consideration the approved Plans of Work and not require redundant systems.

Recognition of the difference between Extension Programs and Research Projects which feed into each other but are not alike is critical in implementing Civil Rights Reviews. Extension Programs are usually designed with end users in mind. Sometimes the end user will be the consumer, the grower, the producer, the processor, the shipper, the family and etc. while research projects are usually determined by merely asking a question of nature and without knowing who the end user might be. A research project may be successful or it may fail. If it fails it will never be written up for consumption by any public whereas if the research is successful if will be made available to all publics to be searched out by the consumer of the information. The research scientist may never know who has an interest in their work and to what use the information may be put to.

Inasmuch as research information is provided through refereed journals, bulletins, web sites, Cooperative Extension personnel and their programs and other outlets it is impossible to gather the kind of information requested from State Agricultural Experiment Stations for the proposed Civil Rights Reviews. Furthermore, Experiment Stations are subject to the Civil Rights rules, regulations and reporting of the University to which they belong. Thus hiring practices, graduate student selection and all other EEO and Affirmative Action procedures are required of State Agricultural Experiment Stations. The proposed Civil Rights Review procedures for research are thus redundant and achieve no useful purpose. The feeling of the reviewers is that if a university passes “muster” for Civil Rights with the available information then the State Agricultural Experiment Stations also meet the federal guidelines.

The necessity of accountability and performance evaluation, in essence insure that people employed by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations will not be treated “equally”. There are differential costs associated with different areas of research. Equipment costs are different, publication costs vary, the need for land or other

Specific comments from reviewers are as follows:

“The emphasis is on programs, the review is to ensure that programs represent the priorities of the breadth of stakeholders (including minorities) and that they are constructed and delivered in a way that is non?discriminatory.”

” It is redundant to have the partnership agency also subject CES and AES to another review when the reviews also are completed by the university.”

“Many of the processes or methods asked about in areas 1&2 are determined at the departmental level. Does the review team want to see individual department responses or a more general complilation at the college level?”

” Many stakeholder groups are not diverse and advisory groups are made up of representatives of the stakeholder groups. Is the goal to have advisory groups represent the diversity of the stakeholder groups or the general population?”

“Most experiment stations are regulated by the university EO Offices in areas 3-8. This should be acknowledged in the guidelines. Doesn’t university compliance, based on review, provide acceptable evidence for Experiment Stations?”

“The Agricultural Experiment Stations are subject to the Civil Rights policies of their universities. These policies have been approved by the federal Office of Civil Rights and many universities have received a civil rights audit from this agency.”

“If the purpose guidelines are adopted an Agricultural Experiment Station will have to hire at least on full time person to keep all of the records that are required by the draft guidelines.”

“In the Resource Allocation section, most decisions are made at the department or center level and there are different criteria used in each unit.”

“In the Graduate Student section all processes are conducted at the unit level. State Experiment Stations do not usually participate directly although they do provide funds for stipends. Keeping records on graduate students will be redundant to department and Graduate College records.”

” Professional Development (including mentoring) is a university?wide program. There is nothing specific regarding faculty and staff paid from AES funds.”

“All employees receive training from the Office of Civil Rights. The records of civil rights training and materials related to the training should be maintained at a central point in the University not the AES office.”

“An internal evaluation plan, public notification and accessibility are a function of the University.”

“CSREES could merely certify that AES’s are in compliance with all federal civil rights policies if the university has” passed muster” with the Office of Civil Rights. This would avoid all of the unnecessary and unproductive record keeping that the draft compliance review guide proposes.”

“Whatever is in the POWs has already been approved by CSREES. A more detailed review of whether or not they meet the civil rights standards is certainly appropriate, but the prior approval of the stakeholder input process should be acknowledged up front.”

“Needs and Priorities: Certainly, good processes must be in place for effective identification of needs. However, once needs have been identified there must also be a process which prioritized needs. In an ideal world the latter would drive allocation of resources in some equitable fashion but this is generally not the case. In many people’s minds “equitable: means equal and herein lies a big problem.”

“Most places I know are running some type of internal research grants program but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the majority of formula funds are being spent on salaries.”

“Start-up funds are used were used to offer as much as we could afford to attract the best possble candidate. Some areas of science are more expensive and require greater start-up costs so packages will almost always not be equal. In any event start-up packages are the purview of the Dean/Director and other local university officials. I don’t see this as a civil rights or diversity issue.”

“Space allocation is the purview of the Dean/Director and other local university officials. Many universities have guidelines relative to space assignments which have been endorsed or at least reviewed by faculty senates. This is not a civil rights or diversity issue but is the sole responsibility of the university.”

Taking into account all the comments from the review team it is clear that the proposed guidelines for Civil Rights Review Procedures are not appropriate for State Agricultural Experiment Stations. When the initial committee was established by McArthur Floyd discussions with CSREES centered along the lines of SAES being part of the university Civil Rights process and that the guidelines should so state. Recognition of the difference between Cooperative Extension and Experiment Stations is critical to the development of Civil Rights Review Guidelines for each branch of the CSREES.

The State Agricultural Experiment Stations are committed to meeting the requirements for Civil Rights compliance and will work diligently to accomplish that goal. The generation of records, reports and audits that exceed the Federal Requirements, as appears to be pervasive in the proposed CSREES guidelines, negatively impacts the ability of the state partners to accomplish the expected research progress and objectives that support U.S. science and agriculture.

Action Requested: For Information.

Action Taken: Discussion centered around issues that the Directors wanted Eric Young to bring up during the conference call in early October with Colien Hefferan regarding these proposed rules. Eric will report results of the discussion with Dr. Hefferan to the Directors after the call.


Agenda Item 8.
Plan of Work Update

Presenter: Eric Young

Background: Eric Young sent the following email to the Southern Directors on Aug 7 regarding CSREES’s notice in the Federal Register of proposed revisions to the POW Guidelines.

To: Southern Experiment Station Directors and Business OfficersI think most of the directors saw the email today from Eddie Gouge about CSREES seeking public comment on their proposed revisions to the POW Guidelines. In case you didn’t, the solicitation appeared in the Federal Register (68 FR 47012, August 7, 2003) today and I’ve copied the announcement’s text below this memo for your information. The deadline for submitting comments is SEPTEMBER 8, 2003, and directions for submission are in the announcement.

The primary aspect of the proposal is that those entities that submitted a 5-year Plan of Work in mid-1999 must submit a FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update by April 1, 2004. This Update will extend the current FY 2000-FY 2004 5?year POW by two years. The two-year extension is needed to give CSREES time to incorporate recommendations from OIG’s audit into guidelines for the next 5-yr POW and to develop an electronic (presumably web-based) submission process for the POW and the annual reports.

CSREES is also proposing that the submission deadline for the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results be changed from March 1 to April 1, so that the FY03 report will be due April 1, 2004, which they are requesting be submitted concurrent with the POW Update. Then subsequent annual reports will be due on April 1 of 2005, 2006, and 2007.

CSREES will notify all institutions of the need for a new 5-year POW, with new guidelines, two years prior to the POW Update’s expiration on September 30, 2006.

Please read through the announcement below to make sure you know all the details of CSREES’s proposal and submit any comments you have by Sep 8, 2003.

Let me know if you have questions. Thanks, Eric

Below are key excerpts from the Federal Register notice. The entire text was sent with the original email above.

Federal Register: August 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 152)
[Notices]
[Page 47012-47015]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Proposed Revisions to the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is requesting public comment on proposed revisions to the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds (64 FR 19242-19248). These guidelines prescribe the procedures to be followed by the eligible institutions receiving Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds under the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.); sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. 343 (b)(1) and (c)); and sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222). The recipients of these funds are commonly referred to as the 1862 land-grant institutions and 1890 land- grant institutions, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State College. CSREES also is requesting public comment on the revision and reinstatement of a previously approved information collection (OMB No. 0524-0036) associated with these Guidelines.

DATES: Written comments are invited from interested individuals and organizations. To be considered in the formulation of the guidelines, comments must be received on or before September 8, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to CSREES-USDA; Planning and Accountability, Office of the Administrator, Mail Stop 2214; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2214. Comments may be hand-delivered to CSREES-USDA; Planning and Accountability, Office of the Administrator, Room 1325; 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Comments may also be mailed electronically to <mailto:bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov>bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bart Hewitt; Program Analyst, Planning and Accountability, Office of the Administrator; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Washington, DC 20250; at 202-720-5623, 202-720-4730 (fax) or via electronic mail at bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov<mailto:bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov> .

Background and Purpose

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) proposes to revise the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds which implement the plan-of-work reporting requirements enacted in the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), Pub. L.105-185, by adding Part V, FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update. CSREES is proposing that the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions be required to submit a Plan of Work Update only for FY 2005 and FY 2006, instead of submitting a new 5-Year Plan of Work for FY 2005-FY 2009, as CSREES needs to incorporate the recommendations from the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit No. 13001-3-Te, CSREES Implementation of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) into the 5-Year Plan of Work. Consequently, once the final audit recommendations are made, CSREES needs time to develop a viable electronic option for compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). Currently, institutions are submitting their reports via e-mail in WordPerfect file format, Microsoft Word file format, or ASCII file format, and CSREES proposes to have the institutions to do so until a viable electronic option is available.

The objective of the USDA OIG Audit is to determine whether CSREES established effective controls to ensure land-grant institutions implemented AREERA provisions in accordance with the law and regulations. The audit began on November 8, 2002, and the fieldwork is still being conducted. CSREES would like to consider the findings and recommendations of that audit in the design of the next 5-year plan of work. Time also is needed for CSREES to consult with its partnering institution–1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions–in any redesign of the plan-of-work reporting system or extensive revision of the existing Guidelines for the State Plans of Work. This 2-year period will allow for the consideration of the USDA OIG audit findings and recommendations, opportunity to consult with the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions on any extensive revisions to the current Guidelines for State Plans of Work, and the development of a viable electronic option in compliance with GPEA.

CSREES also is proposing to change the due date of the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results from March 1 to April 1. On December 28, 2000 (65 FR 82317), CSREES changed the original due date for the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results from December 31 to the following March 1 after consultation with the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. CSREES is now proposing to extend the due date for the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results to April 1, 2004, for FY 2003; April 1, 2005, for FY 2004; April 1, 2006, for FY 2005; and April 1, 2007, for FY 2006.

Pursuant to the plan of work requirements enacted in the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service hereby to add Part V, FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update, to the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds as follows:

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds

Table of Contents

V. Submission of the FY 2005-2006 Plan of Work Update

  1. General
    1. Planning Option
    2. Period Covered
    3. Projected Resources
    4. Submission and Due Date
    5. Certification
  2. B. FY 2005-2006 Plan of Work Update Evaluation by CSREES
    1. Schedule
    2. Review Criteria

1. Planning Option
The FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update is a prospective plan that extends coverage of the original 5-Year Plan of Work (i.e., FY 2000-FY 2004) to include FY 2005-FY 2006. The FY 2005-2006 Plan of Work Update should be prepared for an institution’s individual functions (i.e., research or extension activities), for an individual institution (including the planning of research and extension activities), or for state-wide activities (a 5-year research and/or extension plan of work for all the eligible institutions in a State), as they were submitted in the original 5-Year Plan of Work that was due on July 15, 1999. Each FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update must reflect the content of the program(s) funded by Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds and the required matching funds. This FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update must continue to describe not only how the program(s) address critical short-term, intermediate, and long-term agricultural issues in a State, but how it relates to and is part of the five broad national goals as outlined above and originally described in the previous 5-year plan of work, thus expanding upon and extending the existing plan with new or continuing efforts.

The FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update should continue to be based on the five original national goals established in the FY 2000-FY 2004 5-year Plan of Work as described in section II.B.1.

2. Period Covered
The FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update will extend the current 5-Year Plan of Work that covered the period from October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2004, to include the period from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2006.

3. Projected Resources
The resources that are allocated for various planned programs in the FY 2005-2006 Plan of Work Update, in terms of human and fiscal measures, should be included and projected to include the sixth and seventh years. The baseline for the institution’s or State’s initial plan (for the two years) should be the Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds for FY 1999 and the required level (i.e., percentage) of matching funds for FY 2005 and FY 2006.

4. Submission and Due Date
The FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update must be submitted by April 1, 2004, to the Planning and Accountability Unit, Office of the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is preferred that these FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Updates be submitted electronically to bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov <mailto:bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov>in either WordPerfect file format, Microsoft Word file format, or ASCII file format. It also is requested that the FY 2003 Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results be submitted with the FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update in order to facilitate a more efficient and comprehensive review for both CSREES and the land-grant institutions.

5. Certification
The FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Updates must be signed by the 1862 Extension Director, 1862 Research Director, 1890 Extension Administrator, and/or 1890 Research Director, depending on the planning option chosen.

B. FY 2005-2006 Plan of Work Update Evaluation by CSREES

1. Schedule
All FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Updates will be evaluated by CSREES in conjunction with the review of the FY 2003 Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results. The FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update will either be accepted by CSREES without change or returned to the institution, with clear and detailed recommendations for its modification. The submitting institution(s) will be notified by CSREES of its determination within 90 days (review to be completed in 60 days, communications to the institutions allowing a 30-day response) of receipt of the document. Adherence to the Plan of Work schedule by the recipient institution is critical to assuring the timely allocation of funds by CSREES. The FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Updates accepted by CSREES will be in effect for the period beginning October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2006. CSREES will notify all institutions of a need for a new 5-year plan of work two years prior to the plan’s expiration on September 30, 2006.

2. Review Criteria
CSREES will evaluate the FY 2005-FY 2006 Plan of Work Update according to the criteria in section II.C.2.

Done at Washington, DC, this 1st day of August, 2003.
Colien Hefferan, Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 03-20122 Filed 8-6-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P

Action Requested: For Information.

Action Taken: Two questions were raised during the discussion on the POW extension guidelines. Can the POW Annual Results and Progress reports be due after the AD-419s are certified so that financial information is accurate? What is being done with the annual reports and are they serving any useful purpose? Eric Young will try to get an answer to these questions and report to the Directors.


Agenda Item 9.
Spring 2004 Meeting

Presenter: Eric Young and John Jensen

Background: The SAAESD 2004 Spring meeting will be joint with the experiment station directors of the North Central Regional Association. This meeting is being hosted by Auburn University and will be held on Mar 28?31 at the Perdido Beach Resort in Orange Beach, AL (http://www.perdidobeachresort.com/). Details on this meeting will be posted on our web site as they become available.

Suggestions for a joint session discussion topic are requested from the Southern Directors.

Action Requested: For Information.

Action Taken: The Spring 2004 meeting will be joint with the NC regional research directors association and will be held in Orange Beach, AL. John Jensen and others at Auburn are planning the local arrangements. A joint committee of Southern and North Central directors and EDs will plan the agenda for the half-day joint session.


Agenda Item 10.
Spring 2005 Meeting

Presenter: Eric Young

Background: A discussion will be held concerning the host and potential site for the Spring ’05 SAAESD meeting, which will be joint with ASRED.

Action Requested: For Information.

Action Taken: Bob Whitson (TX) indicated that he and Chester Fehlis (TX-CES) would still host the Spring 2005 joint SAAESD/ASRED meeting in Texas.


Agenda Item 11.
2004 Joint COPS Meeting and SAES/ARD Workshop

Presenter: Eric Young and D. C. Coston

Background: The Southern Region will have the lead in planning both of these meetings because the ESCOP Chair-elect is the chair of the planning committees for Joint COPS meeting and the SAES/ARD Workshop. The Joint COPS planning committee includes the chair-elect from each of the COPS and involves planning the 1/2 to 3/4 day joint session and the general meeting schedule. NASULGC is handling the hotel, meals and meeting space arrangements, but it will be somewhere in the Southern Region. The SAES/ARD Workshop involves all local hotel, meals and space arrangements and planning the first 1/2 day session. Also, the region’s ED is responsible for coordinating the entire Workshop program.

Action Requested: Appoint a small planning committee for the SAES/ARD Workshop, select potential sites for the Workshop, and suggest topics for sessions in both meetings.

Action Taken: Eric Young indicated the Joint COPS meeting would be July 24-28 and that NASULGC staff are doing the local arrangements. Meeting location will likely be in Tennessee, Florida, or Georgia. As ESCOP Chair-elect, D.C. Coston will chair the program committee that will put together the half-day joint session program at this meeting. D.C. and Eric are also responsible for the 2004 SAES/ARD Workshop, program and local arrangements. D.C. indicated that the Workshop will be in OK, either Oklahoma City or Tulsa, and that OSU’s conference office will handle the local arrangements. D.C. and the southern region can choose the topic for the first half-day Workshop session and some discussion occurred on potential topics. The Directors agreed, however, that the final decision on topic for this session was up to D.C. A planning committee for the Workshop was appointed by Chair Weidemann, consisting of Coston, Weidemann, Cox, and Young.


Agenda Item 12.
Multistate Research Committee (MRC) Report

Presenter: William F. Brown

Background:

  • Committee Appointments:
    Dr. Ralph Otto has replaced George Cooper as CSREES representative on the Southern Region Multistate Research Committee.
  • SAAESD Guidelines Updates:
    Approved new documents in the SAAESD Operational Guidelines referring to Annual Reports and Termination Reports.
  • Projects approved by the MRC and CSREES:
    • S-1011, Water Quality Methodology for Crop Protection Chemicals (S-271) – Marty Fuller, AA
    • S-1012, Nutritional Systems for Swine to Increase Reproductive Efficiency (S-288) – Nancy Cox, AA
    • S-1013, Genetic (Co) Variance of Parasite Resistance, Temperament, and Production Traits of Traditional and Non-Bos Indicus Tropically Adapted Breeds (S-277) – David Morrison, AA
    • S-1014, Mineral Controls on P Retention and Release in Soils and Soil Amendments (S-280) – Eric Young, AA
    • S-1015, Host Resistance as the Cornerstone for Managing Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Sustainable Agroecosystems (S-282) – Ron Lacewell, AA
  • Projects approved by the MRC with pending CSREES approval:
    • S-1016, Impacts of Trade and Domestic Policies on the Competitiveness and Performance of Southern Agriculture (S-287) – Tom Klindt, AA
    • S-9, Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization (S-009) – Jerry Arkin, AA
  • Projects terminating 9/30/03 without pending replacement projects under review by MRC:
    • S-222, Fruit and Vegetable Supply-Chain Management, Innovations, and Competitiveness – Bob Shulstad, AA (Development Committee requested 6/23/03.)
    • S-285, Reproductive Performance of Turkeys – Jerry Cherry, AA (Development Committee requested 8/22/03.)

Action Requested: For Information.

Action Taken: Projects approved by the MRC were presented, no further approval by the Association is needed.


Agenda Item 13.
Nominating Committee Report

Presenter: Vance Watson and William H. Brown

Background: The Nominating Committee will present a nominee for Chair-Elect. In addition to membership on the SAAESD Executive Committee for three years as Chair-Elect, Chair, and then as Past Chair, the person in this position also is a Southern Region Voting Member of ESCOP for the same three year period. The term of office begins at the conclusion of the fall SAAESD meeting, held in conjunction with the ESS meeting.

Action Requested: Approval.

Action Taken: Nancy Cox was nominated as Chair-elect for 2003/04 and her nomination was accepted by acclamation.


Agenda Item 14.
Resolutions Committee Report

Presenter: Roland Mote and Clarence Watson

Background: Resolutions will be presented for the following persons who have left the Association:

  • Jim Fischer, SC
  • Johnny Wynne, NC

Action Requested: Approval.

Action Taken: Resolutions of appreciation were read for Drs Jim Fischer and Johnny Wynne, who have left the Association for other positions. A resolution of appreciation was also read for Dr. Vance Watson and Ms. Anne Cook of the Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station at MS State University for their roles in hosting the Executive Director’s and Assistant to the Director’s offices and the Association’s finances over the past eight years. All resolutions were approved by acclamation.


Agenda Item 15.
Closing Remarks and Announcements

Presenter: Greg Weidemann

Background:

Action Requested: For information.

Meeting adjourned at 11:30.